UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO.
FILING DATE
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
CONFIRMATION NO.
18/268,693
06/21/2023
Fumiaki NAGASE
18642-000601-US-NP
4335
27572
7590
10/01/2025
EXAMINER
HARNESS DICKEY (TROY)
VIDAL CARPIO, MARIELA
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
ART UNIT
2476
PAPER NUMBER
NOTIFICATION DATE
DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2025
ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Office Action Summary
Application No.
18/268,693
Applicant(s)
NAGASE et al.
Examiner
MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO
Art Unit
2476
AIA (First Inventor to
File) Status Yes
The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
Period for Reply
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
date of this communication.
If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/21/2023.
1)
Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/21/2023.
2a)
A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
This action is FINAL.
2b)
This action is non-final.
3)
An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
on; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
4)
Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
Disposition of Claims*
5)
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are pending in the application.
6)
5a) Of the above claim(s)
Claim(s)
is/are withdrawn from consideration.
7)
Claim(s)
is/are allowed.
8)
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
9)
Claim(s)
is/are objected to.
Claim(s)
are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
Application Papers
10)
The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
11)
The drawing(s) filed on 06/21/2023 is/are: a)☑ accepted or b) ☐ objected to by the Examiner.
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
12)
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Certified copies:
a) All b) Some** c) None of the:
1.
Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2.
Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
3.
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
Attachment(s)
1)
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
3)
Interview Summary (PTO-413)
2)
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date
4)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date
Other:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
Office Action Summary
Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20250918
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 2
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
2.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites "phone system comprising a traffic control device". For clarity purposes
it is suggested to insert a colon ":" after the term "comprising". Similar objection applies to
claim 5 and 8.
3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4.
Claim7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 recites “A traffic control program that is executed by a computer and causes the
computer to execute the traffic control method according to claim 4". The examiner notes a
traffic control program or software is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter." Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a program cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten,
84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 3
Claim Interpretation
5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a
combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified
function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or
acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
6.
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also
commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification
when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for
"means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B)
the term "means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language,
typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for") or another
linking word or phrase, such as "configured to” or “so that"; and
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 4
(C)
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word “means” (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that
the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim
limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely
perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step") are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,"
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 5
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"traffic control device" and "information processing device" recited in claims 1-3 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification (see Fig. 10 paragraph [0062]) as
performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or
a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
invention.
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 6
Claim 1 recites "first setting processing of setting a packet discard rate of each of the
calls in a manner where the packet discard rate is proportional to the call duration until start of a
new call so that total call traffic falls within a line capacity of the one line when the total call
traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start of the new call". The examiner notes that the
language of "in a manner where" and "so that" are result based and intended use recitations.
This type of recitation does not further limit the claim and has no patentable weight. The
examiner is unable to determine if these were the intentions of the claim (to be interpreted as
intended use language) or if it is meant to have patentable weight. The examiner is unable to
ascertain the scope of the claim. Similar rejection applies to claims 2-6 and 8.
Claim 1 recites "acquiring a call duration of each of calls on one line shared by a plurality
of IP phones; and first setting processing of setting a packet discard rate of each of the calls in a
manner where the packet discard rate is proportional to the call duration until start of a new call
so that total call traffic falls within a line capacity of the one line when the total call traffic
exceeds the line capacity with the start of the new call". The recitation of "the packet discard
rate is proportional to the call duration until" raises some ambiguity issues. It is unclear if there
is only one packet discard rate that is used by all calls or each one has its own packet discard rate
respectively. It is also unclear which packet discard rate and call duration it is being referred to
as a plurality of call durations and packet data rates have been introduced (i.e., “call duration of
each of calls" and "packet discard rate of each of the calls"), rendering the claim indefinite.
Similar rejection applies to claims 2-6 and 8.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 7
improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible
harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where
the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not
patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either
anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg,
140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d
2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van
Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP
§§ 706.02(1)(1) - 706.02(1)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor
to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the
form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or
PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely
online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 8
processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
10. Claims 1, 4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 7 of US Patent 12,323,329 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, the table below
compares the different parts of exemplary claim 1. Those not underlined are the same or
effectively the same parts:
Instant Application 17/948,539
1. An Internet Protocol (IP) phone system
comprising a traffic control device connected
to a line, wherein the traffic control device
executes:
processing of acquiring a call duration of each
of calls on one line shared by a plurality of IP
phones; and
first setting processing of setting a packet
discard rate of each of the calls in a manner
where the packet discard rate is proportional
to the call duration until start of a new call so
that total call traffic falls within a line
capacity of the one line when the total call
traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start
of the new call.
US Patent 12,323,329 B2
7. A congestion control device in an Internet
Protocol (IP) telephone system, comprising:
an information processing device,
implemented using one or more computing
devices, configured to perform operations
comprising:
acquiring a number of simultaneous calls in a
first line shared by a plurality of IP
telephones, acquiring a call time order
corresponding to a length of call time for
each call, and
controlling a packet discard rate of
each call based on the number of
simultaneous calls and the call time order,
wherein the information processing device is
configured to: set the packet discard rate of
each call to be equal to or less than a
predetermined first upper limit value, set the
packet discard rate (i) higher for
longer call times and (ii) lower for
shorter call times, and set the
packet discard rate of a latest call having the
shortest call time to be equal to or less than a
predetermined second upper limit value lower
than the predetermined first upper limit value,
and wherein: in a comparison method, the
packet discard rate of each call is set to be
equal to or less than the predetermined first
upper limit value, the packet discard rate is set
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 9
higher for longer call times, the
packet discard rate is set lower for
shorter call times, further the
packet discard rate is set so that the
packet discard rate linearly changes with
respect to the call time order, a first call has a
longest call time, a first state is a state in
which the packet discard rate of the
first call in the case of the comparison method
reaches the predetermined first upper limit
value, and in the first state, the
packet discard rate of the latest call is set to
be lower than that of the comparison method.
11. Claims 1, 4 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1, 4 and 5 of US Patent 12,316,545 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, the table below
compares the different parts of exemplary claim 1. Those not underlined are the same or
effectively the same parts:
Instant Application 17/948,539
1 . An Internet Protocol (IP) phone system
comprising a traffic control device connected
to a line, wherein the traffic control device
executes:
processing of acquiring a call duration of each
of calls on one line shared by a plurality of IP
phones; and
first setting processing of setting a packet
discard rate of each of the calls in a manner
where the packet discard rate is proportional
to the call duration until start of a new call so
that total call traffic falls within a line
capacity of the one line when the total call
traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start
of the new call.
US Patent 12,316,545 B2
1. A congestion control method in an Internet
Protocol (IP) phone system, comprising:
acquiring a number of simultaneous call
sessions in one line shared by a plurality of IP
phones; acquiring a call time of each call
session;
setting a priority ranking of each call session
based on the call time of each call session,
wherein the longer the call time is, the lower
the priority ranking is set, and the shorter the
call time is, the higher the priority ranking is
set; and dynamically
controlling packet loss rates of
the call sessions in accordance with the
number of the simultaneous call sessions and
the priority ranking, wherein the higher the
priority ranking is, the lower
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 10
the packet loss rate is set, and the lower the
priority ranking is, the higher
the packet loss rate is set.
12.
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:
13.
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 of this
title, 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a first
embodiment of Gell et al. (US 2012/0281536 A1, hereinafter “Gell”) in view of a second
embodiment of Gell (US 2012/0281536 A1).
As to claim 1:
Gell's first embodiment discloses an Internet Protocol (IP) phone system (see Figs. 1, 5
and 16; see also VoIP/Skype/Vonage; [0047]; [0049]; [0144]; [0054])comprising
wherein
a traffic control device connected to a line (see Figs. 1 and 5; scheduling module 300),
the traffic control device executes (see Figs. 1 and 5; scheduling module 300; [0071]):
processing of acquiring a [stream] duration of each of [streams] ("the duration of a video
data stream may be obtained using the enhanced classification methods described above,
including the Range information indicated during an RTSP message exchange. Information on
the amount of time remaining in the video data stream may be calculated, for example, by
subtracting the current video playback time from the stop time indicated in the Range
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 11
information. Current video playback time may also be obtained”; [0175] "Input traffic 305 can
consist of a heterogeneous set of individual data streams each with unique users, sessions,
logical connections, performance requirements, priorities, or policies that enter the scheduling
system"; [0072]; [0080]; [0164]-[0174]; [0048] “the AF of a video data stream is adjusted
based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data
stream, or a combination thereof”; [0174]; [0172]; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams may
decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]) on one line shared by a
plurality of IP phones (see Figs. 1 and 16; see also VoIP/Skype/Vonage; [0047]; [0049];
[0144]; [0054]); and
first setting processing of setting a packet discard rate of each of the [streams] (“the
enhanced scheduler parameter calculation module 335 can be configured to extend the
application factor (AF) from a function of application class and specific application to also
depend on application characteristics”; see Fig. 16; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams
may decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]; [0143] adjusting of AF
per stream/session/application/user see [0164]-[0174] “A lower AF may result in more packets
being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170];
[0172]; [0185] the examiner interprets setting a AF of each of the streams as the claimed setting
a packet discard rate, since setting the AF sets the packet dropped rate) in a manner where the
packet discard rate is proportional to the [stream] duration (“the AF of a video data stream is
adjusted based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the
video data stream, or a combination thereof”; [0174]; [0169]; [0172] “A lower AF may result
in more packets being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a
higher AF"; [0170]) until start of a new [stream] ("dynamically assign a higher AF to a video
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 12
data stream that is nearing completion as compared to one that is just starting in order to leave
the customer who has finished viewing a video data stream with the best possible impression";
[0174] "For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is just
started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer of
entire data stream is about to complete"; [0172]) so that total [stream] traffic falls within a line
capacity of the one line when the total [stream] traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start of
the new [stream] (“A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped during periods of
congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]-[0171]; "the AF of a data stream
may be adjusted dynamically by an amount proportional to the percentage of data remaining to
be transferred. For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is
just started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer
of entire data stream is about to complete"[0172]; [0174]; [0185]).
Gell's first embodiment does not explicitly disclose the stream is a call.
However, in a second embodiment, Gell discloses a stream being a call (“VoIP stream”;
see Fig. 16; [0200]-[0201] see also voice services; [0144] "Examples of sessions include a
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) call using the Skype application from a laptop"; [0047];
[0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second embodiment of Gell into the
first embodiment of Gell as it would allow the stream to be a call and streams to be calls. Such
combination would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one known
element (i.e., stream(s)) for another (i.e., call(s)) to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Gell
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 13
discloses similar processes being applied to voice services in paragraph [0144]-[0145], where the
process would optimize/preserve QoE ([0142]; [0144]; [0167]-[0171]).
As to claim 4:
Gell's first embodiment discloses a traffic control method in an Internet Protocol (IP)
phone system (see Figs. 1, 5 and 16; see also VoIP/Skype/Vonage; Abstract; [0047]; [0049];
[0144]; [0054]), the traffic control method comprising:
processing of acquiring a [stream] duration of each of [streams] (“the duration of a video
data stream may be obtained using the enhanced classification methods described above,
including the Range information indicated during an RTSP message exchange. Information on
the amount of time remaining in the video data stream may be calculated, for example, by
subtracting the current video playback time from the stop time indicated in the Range
information. Current video playback time may also be obtained”; [0175] “Input traffic 305 can
consist of a heterogeneous set of individual data streams each with unique users, sessions,
logical connections, performance requirements, priorities, or policies that enter the scheduling
system"; [0072]; [0080]; [0164]-[0174]; [0048] “the AF of a video data stream is adjusted
based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data
stream, or a combination thereof”; [0174]; [0172]; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams may
decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]) on one line shared by a
plurality of IP phones (see Figs. 1 and 16; see also VoIP/Skype/Vonage; [0047]; [0049];
[0144]; [0054]); and
first setting processing of setting a packet discard rate of each of the [streams] (“the
enhanced scheduler parameter calculation module 335 can be configured to extend the
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 14
depend on application characteristics”; see Fig. 16; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams
may decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]; [0143] adjusting of AF
per stream/session/application/user see [0164]-[0174] “A lower AF may result in more packets
being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170];
[0172]; [0185] the examiner interprets setting a AF of each of the streams as the claimed setting
a packet discard rate, since setting the AF sets the packet dropped rate) in a manner where the
packet discard rate is proportional to the call duration (“the AF of a video data stream is adjusted
based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data
stream, or a combination thereof”; [0174]; [0169]; [0172] “A lower AF may result in more
packets being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF";
[0170]) until start of a new [stream] ("dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream
that is nearing completion as compared to one that is just starting in order to leave the customer
who has finished viewing a video data stream with the best possible impression”; [0174] “For
example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is just started. For
another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer of entire data
stream is about to complete”; [0172]) so that total [stream] traffic falls within a line capacity of
the one line when the total [stream] traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start of the new
[stream] (“A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped during periods of congestion
than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]-[0171]; "the AF of a data stream may be
adjusted dynamically by an amount proportional to the percentage of data remaining to be
transferred. For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is
just started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer
of entire data stream is about to complete"[0172]; [0174]; [0185]).
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 15
Gell's first embodiment does not explicitly disclose the stream is a call.
However, in a second embodiment, Gell discloses a stream being a call (“VoIP stream”;
see Fig. 16; [0200]-[0201] see also voice services; [0144] "Examples of sessions include a
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) call using the Skype application from a laptop"; [0047];
[0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second embodiment of Gell into the
first embodiment of Gell as it would allow the stream to be a call and streams to be calls. Such
combination would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one known
element (i.e., stream(s)) for another (i.e., call(s)) to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Gell
discloses similar processes being applied to voice services in paragraph [0144]-[0145], where the
process would optimize/preserve QoE ([0142]; [0144]; [0167]-[0171]).
As to claim 7:
The combined system/method of Gell's first and second embodiment discloses the
invention set forth above. Gell's first embodiment further discloses a traffic control program that
is executed by a computer and causes the computer to execute the traffic control method (see
Figs. 3 and 5; scheduling module 300 with processor and memory containing
instructions/software; [0071]; [0046]; [0281]; [0283]) according to claim 4 (see claim 4).
As to claim 8:
Gell's first embodiment discloses a traffic control device(see Figs. 1, 3 and 5; scheduling
module 300) in an Internet Protocol (IP) phone system (see Figs. 1, 5 and 16; see also
VoIP/Skype/Vonage; [0047]; [0049]; [0144]; [0054]), the traffic control device comprising
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 16
an information processing device (see Figs. 1, 3 and 5; scheduling module 300 and processor;
[0071]), wherein
the information processing device executes (see Figs. 1, 3 and 5; scheduling module 300
and processor; [0071]):
processing of acquiring a [stream] duration of each of [streams] ("the duration of a video
data stream may be obtained using the enhanced classification methods described above,
including the Range information indicated during an RTSP message exchange. Information on
the amount of time remaining in the video data stream may be calculated, for example, by
subtracting the current video playback time from the stop time indicated in the Range
information. Current video playback time may also be obtained”; [0175] “Input traffic 305 can
consist of a heterogeneous set of individual data streams each with unique users, sessions,
logical connections, performance requirements, priorities, or policies that enter the scheduling
system"; [0072]; [0080]; [0164]-[0174]; [0048] “the AF of a video data stream is adjusted
based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data
stream, or a combination thereof"; [0174]; [0172]; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams may
decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]) on one line shared by a
plurality of IP phones (see Figs. 1 and 16; see also VoIP/Skype/Vonage; [0047]; [0049];
[0144]; [0054]); and
first setting processing of setting a packet discard rate of each of the [streams] ("the
enhanced scheduler parameter calculation module 335 can be configured to extend the
application factor (AF) from a function of application class and specific application to also
depend on application characteristics”; see Fig. 16; [0169] “the AF for new Netflix streams
may decrease leaving existing Netflix streams' AFs unchanged"; [0167]; [0143] adjusting of AF
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 17
per stream/session/application/user see [0164]-[0174] “A lower AF may result in more packets
being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170];
[0172]; [0185] the examiner interprets setting a AF of each of the streams as the claimed setting
a packet discard rate, since setting the AF sets the packet dropped rate) in a manner where the
packet discard rate is proportional to the [stream] duration (“the AF of a video data stream is
adjusted based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the
video data stream, or a combination thereof"; [0174]; [0169]; [0172] “A lower AF may result
in more packets being dropped during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a
higher AF"; [0170]) until start of a new [stream] (“dynamically assign a higher AF to a video
data stream that is nearing completion as compared to one that is just starting in order to leave
the customer who has finished viewing a video data stream with the best possible impression";
[0174] "For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is just
started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer of
entire data stream is about to complete"; [0172]) so that total [stream] traffic falls within a line
capacity of the one line when the total [stream] traffic exceeds the line capacity with the start of
the new [stream] (“A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped during periods of
congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]-[0171]; "the AF of a data stream
may be adjusted dynamically by an amount proportional to the percentage of data remaining to
be transferred. For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream if the data transfer is
just started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data stream if the transfer
of entire data stream is about to complete"[0172]; [0174]; [0185]).
Gell's first embodiment does not explicitly disclose the stream is a call.
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 18
However, in a second embodiment, Gell discloses a stream being a call ("VoIP stream";
see Fig. 16; [0200]-[0201] see also voice services; [0144] "Examples of sessions include a
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) call using the Skype application from a laptop"; [0047];
[0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second embodiment of Gell into the
first embodiment of Gell as it would allow the stream to be a call and streams to be calls. Such
combination would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one known
element (i.e., stream(s)) for another (i.e., call(s)) to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Gell
discloses similar processes being applied to voice services in paragraph [0144]-[0145], where the
process would optimize/preserve QoE ([0142]; [0144]; [0167]-[0171]).
14. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a first
embodiment of Gell (US 2012/0281536 A1) in view of a second embodiment of Gell (US
2012/0281536 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0188230, hereinafter “Wang").
As to claim 2:
The combined system/method of Gell's first and second embodiments discloses the
invention set forth above. Gell's first embodiment further discloses wherein the traffic control
device (see Figs. 1 and 5; scheduling module 300; [0071]) further executes
second setting processing of resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams]
("the AF is further adjusted based upon video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data
rate, duration of the video stream, amount of data transferred with respect to the total amount of
video stream data"; [0169]; [0172]; “the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 19
duration of the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a
combination thereof. For example, an operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length
Netflix movie as compared to a short 10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a
higher expectation of quality for a feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In
another example, the operator may decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data
stream that is nearing completion as compared to one that is just starting"; [0174] note:
adjusting = resetting/second setting processing), and
the second setting processing (adjusting processing; [0169]; [0172]; [0174]) includes:
processing of calculating a corrected [stream] duration by adding a correction amount to
the [stream] duration of each of the [streams] (“the AF is further adjusted based upon video
frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the video stream, amount of
data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data"; [0169]; [0172]; "the
AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data stream, the
amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof. For example, an
operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as compared to a short
10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation of quality for a
feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the operator may
decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing completion as
compared to one that is just starting”; [0174] note: dynamically determining/calculating stream
duration and/or remaining duration = calculating corrected stream duration, beginning
duration minus the remaining duration that has been dynamically calculated = correction
amount); and
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 20
processing of resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams] ("the AF is further
adjusted based upon video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the
video stream, amount of data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data";
[0169]; [0172]; "the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video
data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof.
For example, an operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as
compared to a short 10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation
of quality for a feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the
operator may decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing
completion as compared to one that is just starting”; [0174] note: adjusting = resetting/second
setting processing) in a manner where the packet discard rate is proportional to the corrected call
duration ("the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data
stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof";
[0174]; [0169]; [0172] “A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped during periods
of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]) so that the total [stream]
traffic falls within the line capacity (“A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped
during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]-[0171]; "the
AF of a data stream may be adjusted dynamically by an amount proportional to the percentage
of data remaining to be transferred. For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream
if the data transfer is just started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data
stream if the transfer of entire data stream is about to complete"[0172]; [0174]; [0185]). Gell's
second embodiment discloses a stream being a call ("VoIP stream”; see Fig. 16; [0200]-[0201]
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 21
see also voice services; [0144] “Examples of sessions include a voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) call using the Skype application from a laptop”; [0047]; [0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second embodiment of Gell into the
first embodiment of Gell as it would allow the stream to be a call and streams to be calls. Such
combination would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one known
element (i.e., stream(s)) for another (i.e., call(s)) to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Gell
discloses similar processes being applied to voice services in paragraph [0144]-[0145], where the
process would optimize/preserve QoE ([0142]; [0144]; [0167]-[0171]).
The combined system/method of Gell's first embodiment and second embodiment does
not explicitly disclose when a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting
processing exceeds a predetermined upper limit.
However, Wang discloses resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams] when
a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting processing exceeds a
predetermined upper limit ("the sending device may detect the packet loss rate periodically or in
real time, and dynamically adjust the sending rate based on a packet loss rate calculated by a
sender on which a packet loss occurs. In an example, when the sending device detects that the
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 22
packet loss rate is greater than or equal to the first threshold, it indicates that a severe packet
loss may be caused by a current large rate. In this case, the sending device decreases the
sending rate, to avoid a severe packet loss. When the sending device detects that the packet loss
rate is less than the first threshold, the sending rate may be set to the upper rate limit V.sub.max.
In this way, the sending rate is ensured, and no severe packet loss occurs”; [0285]; [0279]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang into the combined system/method
of Gell's first and second embodiments as it would allow resetting the packet discard rate of each
of the calls when a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting processing
exceeds a predetermined upper limit. Such combination would have been obvious as the
references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to improve a data
transmission capability, communication efficiency and have no severe packet loss occur (Wang;
[0103]; [0285]; [0289]).
As to claim 3:
The combined system/method of Gell's first and second embodiments and Wang
discloses the invention set forth above. Gell's first embodiment further discloses wherein the
traffic control device sets the correction amount so that a maximum value of the packet discard
rate set by the second setting processing becomes the predetermined upper limit ("the AF is
further adjusted based upon video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration
of the video stream, amount of data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream
data"; [0169]; [0172]; "the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of
the video data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination
thereof. For example, an operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix
movie as compared to a short 10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher
expectation of quality for a feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another
example, the operator may decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that
is nearing completion as compared to one that is just starting”; [0174] the limitation of "so that
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 23
a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the second setting processing becomes the
predetermined upper limit" is a results/intended use recitation, accordingly does not limit the
claim).
As to claim 5:
The combined system/method of Gell's first and second embodiments discloses the
invention set forth above. Gell's first embodiment further discloses second setting processing of
resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams] (“the AF is further adjusted based upon
video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the video stream, amount
of data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data"; [0169]; [0172]; "the
AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data stream, the
amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof. For example, an
operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as compared to a short
10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation of quality for a
feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the operator may
decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing completion as
compared to one that is just starting"; [0174] note: adjusting = resetting/second setting
processing), wherein
the second setting processing (adjusting processing; [0169]; [0172]; [0174]) includes:
processing of calculating a corrected [stream] duration by adding a correction amount to the
[stream] duration of each of the [streams] (“the AF is further adjusted based upon video frame
size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the video stream, amount of data
transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data”; [0169]; [0172]; "the AF of a
video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data stream, the amount of
time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof. For example, an operator
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 24
may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as compared to a short 10 second
Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation of quality for a feature length
film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the operator may decide to
dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing completion as compared
to one that is just starting”; [0174] note: dynamically determining/calculating stream duration
and/or remaining duration = calculating corrected stream duration, beginning duration minus
the remaining duration that has been dynamically calculated = correction amount); and
processing of resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams] (“the AF is further
adjusted based upon video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the
video stream, amount of data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data";
[0169]; [0172]; “the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video
data stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof.
For example, an operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as
compared to a short 10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation
of quality for a feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the
operator may decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing
completion as compared to one that is just starting”; [0174] note: adjusting = resetting/second
setting processing) in a manner where the packet discard rate is proportional to the corrected call
duration ("the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data
stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof";
[0174]; [0169]; [0172] “A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped during periods
of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]) so that the total [stream]
traffic falls within the line capacity(“A lower AF may result in more packets being dropped
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 25
during periods of congestion than would be dropped using a higher AF"; [0170]-[0171]; “the
AF of a data stream may be adjusted dynamically by an amount proportional to the percentage
of data remaining to be transferred. For example, a lower AF may be assigned to a data stream
if the data transfer is just started. For another example, a higher AF may be assigned to a data
stream if the transfer of entire data stream is about to complete"[0172]; [0174];
[0185]). Gell's second embodiment discloses a stream being a call ("VoIP stream"; see Fig.
16; [0200]-[0201] see also voice services; [0144] “Examples of sessions include a voice over
internet protocol (VoIP) call using the Skype application from a laptop”; [0047]; [0050]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the second embodiment of Gell into the
first embodiment of Gell as it would allow the stream to be a call and streams to be calls. Such
combination would have been obvious as it would have been a simple substitution of one known
element (i.e., stream(s)) for another (i.e., call(s)) to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, Gell
discloses similar processes being applied to voice services in paragraph [0144]-[0145], where the
process would optimize/preserve QoE ([0142]; [0144]; [0167]-[0171]).
The combined system/method of Gell's first embodiment and second embodiment does
not explicitly disclose when a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting
processing exceeds a predetermined upper limit.
However, Wang discloses resetting the packet discard rate of each of the [streams] when
a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting processing exceeds a
predetermined upper limit ("the sending device may detect the packet loss rate periodically or in
real time, and dynamically adjust the sending rate based on a packet loss rate calculated by a
sender on which a packet loss occurs. In an example, when the sending device detects that the
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 26
packet loss rate is greater than or equal to the first threshold, it indicates that a severe packet
loss may be caused by a current large rate. In this case, the sending device decreases the
sending rate, to avoid a severe packet loss. When the sending device detects that the packet loss
rate is less than the first threshold, the sending rate may be set to the upper rate limit V.sub.max.
In this way, the sending rate is ensured, and no severe packet loss occurs”; [0285]; [0279]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang into the combined system/method
of Gell's first and second embodiments as it would allow resetting the packet discard rate of each
of the calls when a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the first setting processing
exceeds a predetermined upper limit. Such combination would have been obvious as the
references are from analogous art, where a motivation would have been to improve a data
transmission capability, communication efficiency and have no severe packet loss occur (Wang;
[0103]; [0285]; [0289]).
As to claim 6:
The combined system/method of Gell's first and second embodiments and Wang
discloses the invention set forth above. Gell's first embodiment further discloses wherein the
correction amount is set so that a maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the second
setting processing becomes the predetermined upper limit ("the AF is further adjusted based
upon video frame size, video frame rate, video stream data rate, duration of the video stream,
amount of data transferred with respect to the total amount of video stream data"; [0169];
[0172]; "the AF of a video data stream is adjusted based upon the duration of the video data
stream, the amount of time remaining in the video data stream, or a combination thereof. For
example, an operator may decide to assign a higher AF to a full-length Netflix movie as
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 27
compared to a short 10 second Youtube clip, since the customer may have a higher expectation
of quality for a feature length film as compared to a brief video clip. In another example, the
operator may decide to dynamically assign a higher AF to a video data stream that is nearing
completion as compared to one that is just starting”; [0174] the limitation of "so that a
maximum value of the packet discard rate set by the second setting processing becomes the
predetermined upper limit" is a results/intended use recitation, accordingly does not limit the
claim).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is
(571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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
Application/Control Number: 18/268,693
Art Unit: 2476
Page 28
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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights