DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that prior art Plat and Cho are not combinable because Plat teaches Wifi system (802.11) while Cho teaches WiMAX system (802.16).
However, the examiner disagrees because the concept of sending request to a station/UE to assign a QoS rule/priority is not an idea limited to the WiMax system taught by Cho. Plat teaches a system which enforces a Qos priority/rule to the devices in the network however did not teach requesting of devices to assign the Qos priority/rule. The secondary reference Cho was used to modify the system taught by Plat to include requesting. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the qos policy/rule enforcement taught by Plat with the qos rule/policy request with the motivation being to allow the device to accept the qos rule/policy.
Also regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that Cho states “transmits a QoS index table, priority rule information, etc, to a MSs on a broadcast channel or by a MAC message” which is contrary to the “session” limitation. The applicant also argues that the Qos priority/rule is not DPI-based.
The examiner disagrees because the prior art Plat already teaches the “DPI-based qos priority/rule” and Cho is simply used to teach the requesting of qos priority/rule assignment. Furthermore Cho states:
[0068] Referring to FIG. 3B, the BS transmits a QoS index table, priority rule information, etc. to MSs on a broadcast channel or by a MAC message. For example, the priority rule information may regulate that priority 0 is for a latency of 49 ms or below and priority 1 is for a latency of 50 ms or above.
[0069] Each MS determines the QoS index of a flow based on the information received from the BS.
In the above cited portions Cho teaches the QoS index for the flow. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the flow as teaching the “session” of claim 1.
Also regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues that the prior art Plat does not teach coordinating QoS assignments for a specific session across multiple traffic directions and managing upstream station, the downstream station, and the upstream access point QoS for the same session.
However the examiner disagrees. Plat states:[0045] The QoS enforcement may be performed in stages, starting with QoS enforcement based on the lowest-level leaf PO (block 306), and continuing upwardly through the PO tree hierarchy up until (and including) the upper-level leaf PO (block 307). If during the QoS enforcement (blocks 306, 307, and other QoS enforcement operations between them) the method determines that it cannot transmit the packet, then appropriate no-transmit actions are taken (block 309), such as dropping the packet or enqueueing the packet.
[0021] As demonstrated, system 200 may comprise a QoS Allocation Control unit 201 and a QoS Enforcement unit 202, having a feedback loop between them. The QoS Allocation Control unit 201 sets or modifies the bandwidth limits 207, which the QoS Enforcement unit 202 enforces on a stream or batch of packets (e.g., incoming as Packet Rx 203, and outgoing as Packet Tx 204); and the QoS Enforcement unit 202 updates back the QoS Allocation Control unit 201 with regard to the bandwidth that was actually used, via updating of one or more Tx counters 206 whose value(s) are fed back to the QoS Allocation Control unit 201.
[0016] The Applicants have realized that in some network topologies, some or all of the traffic flows of the same session may be routed over different paths, in the upstream direction and/or in the downstream direction. Moreover, in systems that utilize a cluster of stateless NFs, even the same traffic flow or the same stream can be processed on different Processing Units (PU), such as, two or more different servers, NFs, micro-services, or the like. The Applicants have realized that in such situations, a single PU may “see” or may handle or may process, or may be aware of, only a partial portion of the traffic of the entire session, and not the entirety of the traffic of that session. The Applicants have realized that in such situations or topologies, it may not necessarily be possible to assure that all the traffic that is associated with a particular given Policy Object, will be handled by the same single PU; and therefore, realized the Applicants, there is a need for the involved PU to have the same set of Policy Objects as other PU(s) or handling entities have, and there is a need to achieve dynamic or real-time synchronization between or among such multiple PUs. The Applicants have realized that there is a need for a system and a method for synchronized QoS control and policy enforcement in distributed environment. In some embodiments of the present invention, each PU has (or is associated with, or utilizes) the same set of Policy Objects, and the method and system achieve or enable dynamic or real-time synchronization among such multiple PUs.
In the above cited portions, Plat teaches performing Qos enforcement on the lowest-level leaf (e.g. child node) and enforcing the incoming (e.g. downlink data) and outgoing (e.g. uplink). Plat also teaches the incoming and outgoing data being in the same session. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the above as teaching “coordinating QoS assignments for a specific session across multiple traffic directions and managing upstream station, the downstream station, and the upstream access point QoS for the same session”.
All other arguments are fully addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plat (Pub No 20210144096) further in view of Cho (Pub No 20110103342)
Regarding claim 1 and 8,
Plat teaches A non-transitory, computer-readable medium of an access point device storing one or more computer-readable instructions provide quality of service (QoS) prioritization using deep packet inspection (DPI) that when executed by a processor, cause the access point device to perform one or more operations comprising: (interpreted as a non-transitory storage medium or non-transitory storage article (e.g., a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, a physical memory unit, a physical storage unit), such that the program or code or instructions, when executed by a processor or a machine or a computer, cause such processor or machine or computer to perform a method or process as described herein, see para [0089])
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute one or more computer-readable instructions stored on the memory to cause the access point device to: (see para [0089])
receive one or more packets from a station; (incoming packets para [0083])
inspect the one or more packets for QoS information using DPI; (interpreted as perform DPI on one or more incoming packets that are intended for transmission towards said destination, see para [0083])
compare the QoS information to one or more DPI application categories, one or more DPI device categories, or both; (interpreted as generate a DPI-based result that indicates an application that a particular packet is associated with (e.g., identifying a particular application, such as “Skype” or “WhatsApp”; or identifying an application-type, such as “video conferencing application” or “streaming audio application”), see para [0083])
determine a QoS policy from one or more QoS policies based on the comparison; and assign the QoS policy to traffic associated with the session by performing operations comprising: (interpreted as to transfer said DPI-based result to said QoS Policy Enforcement Management Unit. Then, the QoS Policy Enforcement Management Unit utilizes (or takes into account, among other conditions or criteria) said DPI-based result for performing distributed QoS policy enforcement on said packet, see para [0083])
assign a downstream station QoS priority to downstream station traffic, to the station, of the session associated with the one or more packets based on the QoS policy; and (interpreted as The WRED mechanism and the associated QT_WRED threshold value, reflect a drop precedence value or a drop priority value (e.g., High, Medium, Low), which may be set or configured by the QoS policy and/or automatically (e.g., per application, or per application-type), see para [0056]. Also see QoS Enforcement unit 202 enforces on a stream or batch of packets (e.g., incoming as Packet Rx 203, and outgoing as Packet Tx 204), see para [0021] Also see QoS enforcement may be performed in stages, starting with QoS enforcement based on the lowest-level leaf PO (block 306), see para [0045])
assign an upstream access point QoS priority to upstream access point traffic of the session associated with the one or more packets based on the QoS policy. (interpreted as The WRED mechanism and the associated QT_WRED threshold value, reflect a drop precedence value or a drop priority value (e.g., High, Medium, Low), which may be set or configured by the QoS policy and/or automatically (e.g., per application, or per application-type), see para [0056]. Also see QoS Enforcement unit 202 enforces on a stream or batch of packets (e.g., incoming as Packet Rx 203, and outgoing as Packet Tx 204), see para [0021])
However Plat does not teach send a request to the station to assign an upstream station QoS priority to upstream station traffic of a session associated with the one or more packets based on the QoS policy.
Cho teaches send a request to the station to assign an upstream station QoS priority to upstream traffic of a session associated with one or more packets based on the QoS policy; (interpreted as the BS transmits a QoS index table, priority rule information, etc. to MSs on a broadcast channel or by a MAC message. For example, the priority rule information may regulate that priority 0 is for a latency of 49 ms or below and priority 1 is for a latency of 50 ms or above, see para [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QoS policy as taught by Plat with the request to change qos parameters as taught by Cho with the motivation being to prioritize data different based on delay-tolerance.
Regarding claim 2 and 9,
Plat teaches The access point device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer-readable instructions to further cause the access point device to:
receive any of the one or more DPI application categories, the one or more DPI device categories, one or more QoS policies, or any combination thereof from a network resource. (interpreted as Some embodiments of the invention may operate to provide, utilize, define, manage, and enforce Distributed QoS, or a QoS policy that may be distributed across and/or enforced by two or more separate entities or units or devices. For example, several branches of the same enterprise or organization, may be connected (e.g., each one separately) to different Central Office (or Regional Offices). In such case, managing the QoS Policy function for this enterprise is distributed between or among the Central Offices (or Regional Offices), and all the instances of the QoS policy members have to be synchronized, see para [0012])
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plat (Pub No 20210144096) further in view of Cho (Pub No 20110103342)and Lu (Pub No 20220200924)
Regarding claim 5 and 12,
Plat in view of Cho teaches The access point device of claim 1, however do not teach wherein the upstream station QoS priority provides a wireless fidelity multi-media (WMM) upstream station QoS prioritization.
Lu teaches wherein the upstream station QoS priority provides a wireless fidelity multi-media (WMM) upstream station QoS prioritization. (interpreted as seen in FIG. 1B, traffic within the network that is associated with critical users 171 (indicated in solid lined arrow) or non-critical users 172 (indicated by dashed lined arrows) that has been generated by either non-critical applications 173 or critical applications 174, will be further mapped to a specific access category (AC) for QoS based on the WMM policy. The WMM ACs are shown (in order of ascending priority) as: background 175; best effort 176; video 177; and voice 178. In the example, traffic from non-critical applications 173 will be mapped to the background 175 WMM AC, and thus will have low priority with respect to the WMM policy and QoS, see para [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QoS rules forWiFi as taught by Plat in view of Cho with the QoS rules for wi-fi multimedia as taught by Lu with the motivation being to perform the QoS rules for a wi-fi multimedia system.
Regarding claim 6 and 13,
Plat in view of Cho teaches The access point device of claim 1, however do not teach wherein the downstream station QoS priority provides a wireless fidelity multi-media (WMM) downstream QoS prioritization.
Lu teaches wherein the downstream station QoS priority provides a wireless fidelity multi-media (WMM) downstream QoS prioritization. (interpreted as seen in FIG. 1B, traffic within the network that is associated with critical users 171 (indicated in solid lined arrow) or non-critical users 172 (indicated by dashed lined arrows) that has been generated by either non-critical applications 173 or critical applications 174, will be further mapped to a specific access category (AC) for QoS based on the WMM policy. The WMM ACs are shown (in order of ascending priority) as: background 175; best effort 176; video 177; and voice 178. In the example, traffic from non-critical applications 173 will be mapped to the background 175 WMM AC, and thus will have low priority with respect to the WMM policy and QoS, see para [0050])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QoS rules for WiFi as taught by Plat in view of Cho with the QoS rules for wi-fi multimedia as taught by Lu with the motivation being to perform the QoS rules for a wi-fi multimedia system.
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plat (Pub No 20210144096) further in view of Cho (Pub No 20110103342)and Lin (Pub No 20220167373)
Regarding claim 3 and 10,
Plat teaches The access point device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the QoS policy is a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) QoS Management differentiated services code point (DSCP) policy.
Lin teaches wherein the QoS policy is a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) QoS Management differentiated services code point (DSCP) policy (interpreted as The DSCP mapping technology aligns QoS treatment across Wi-Fi and wired networks and also enables network managers to configure specific QoS policies, see para [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the QoS policy taught by Plat with the DSCP as taught by Lin with the motification being to classify and manage traffic for example when applying a QoS policy.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plat (Pub No 20210144096) further in view of Cho (Pub No 20110103342)and Cioffi (Pub No 20210314238)
Regarding claim 7 and 14,
Plat teaches the access point device of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the access point device is included in an EasyMesh network, and wherein the station is an extender access point device.
Cioffi teaches wherein the access point device is included in an EasyMesh network, and wherein the station is an extender access point device. (interpreted as The current Wi-Fi Alliance (WFA) EasyMesh work effectively extends the in-home portion of the BBF TR-369 capabilities. However, the two efforts are not viewed as mutually dependent, because EasyMesh is only between access points and mesh points (MPs) or repeater/extender-AP's, see para [0143])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the wireless taught by Plat with the Easymesh network as taught by Cioffi with the motivation being to perform the communication functions in a different wireless network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16, 18-20 allowed.
Claims 21 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 21, The prior art of record do not teach the access point device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer-readable instructions to further cause the access point device to:
determine, by the access point device, if a tunneled multi-access point agent (MAPA) differentiated services code point (DSCP) Policy query has been received from the station with the session and if the session is identified as requiring a high priority QoS; and
issue, by the access point device, a DSCP Policy request, to the station for an upstream wireless local area network (WLAN) QoS policy, via the tunneled MAPA, responsive to the session being identified as requiring the high priority QoS.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO G NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10pm - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAO G NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461
