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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 8, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection regarding claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Examiner agrees that the feature “wherein adjusting the output buffer depth comprises transmitting, by the network device, a command to the modem to change a depth parameter of the FIFO output queue implemented within the modem” is not taught by Gopinathan (US 20200322280 A1) in view of Shetti (US 20180270170 A1). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn for claims 1-18 and 20 and for these claims a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sevindik (US 20230142266 A1). However, claim 19 does not contain this feature. Rather, claim 19 merely contains “the output buffer comprises a first-in- first-out (FIFO) output queue of the modem that stores packets awaiting uplink transmission over a cellular radio interface.” This feature is taught by paragraph 86 of Gopinathan, and thus Gopinathan in view of Shetti still teach all the features of claim 19 as amended.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinathan (US 20200322280 A1) in view of Shetti (US 20180270170 A1) and Sevindik (US 20230142266 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gopinathan discloses:
“A method comprising: establishing, by a network device… a modem for a data access point name (APN) interface,” ([para 0083]: “As shown in FIG. 7A, cellular modem 150 can include transmitter 152 and receiver 154. In certain embodiments, transmitter 152 may receive uplink traffic (e.g., IP packets) via host router interconnect 112, which are to be transmitted to eNodeB 132, and receiver 154 may receive downlink traffic from eNodeB 132 and may route the traffic to host router interconnect 112 for further routing to another interface, process, etc. via router 110.”)
“wherein the output buffer comprises a first-in- first-out (FIFO) output queue of the modem that stores packets awaiting uplink transmission over a cellular radio interface” ([¶ 0086]: “When a data packet is sent to the cellular modem, the modem will buffer the packets in a transmit ring (e.g., a buffer) in the MAC layer and send a scheduling request to the eNodeB via the PHY layer in order to schedule the packets on the uplink radio bearer.”)
“wherein the network device comprises a network operating system and a communication interface coupled between the network operating system and the modem;” ([para 0068]: “On a router, if there are multiple 4G/LTE interfaces, the router internal operating system (IOS), logic, etc. will identify the cellular interfaces as identical (e.g., having a same path metric when it comes to making routing decisions) with respect to their data throughput capabilities.” See Fig. 5.)
“monitoring traffic congestion of the modem during a predetermined time;” ([para 0097]: “At 802, the operations can include monitoring watermark thresholds for a MAC buffer (e.g., buffer 722) of a cellular modem (e.g., cellular modem 150) for a cellular interface (e.g., first I/O interface 124.1).”)
“receiving notification of backward congestion or notification of no backward congestion from the modem; and” ([para 0090]: “In various embodiments, MAC control logic 720 may monitor the watermark thresholds in relation to buildup of IP packets 730 in buffer 722 and may provide congestion feedback to the host router (e.g., router 110, including processors/logic contained therein, for which the cellular interface is configured).”)
“adjusting … the modem based on monitored traffic congestion.” ([para 0098]: “At 806, the operations can include adjusting the enqueueing of uplink packets into the MAC buffer based on the interrupt.”)
Gopinathan does not disclose “an initial output buffer depth” nor adjusting “output buffer depth”
However, Shetti discloses the missing features:
“an initial output buffer depth” ([para 0010]: “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 110, playback management device 102 can perform an initial buffer space allocation to configure TCP proxy 108 for a new TCP flow.”)
adjusting “output buffer depth” ([para 0046]: “For example, playback management device 245 can determine that a proxy connection associated with the application buffer is being utilized to transfer data to a portion of a network associated with a threshold congestion level, and can determine to reduce an application buffer size to reduce congestion associated with the portion of the network.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Gopinathan and Shetti, to modify the modem adjustment as disclosed by Gopinathan, to be an adjustment of buffer depth as disclosed by Shetti. The motivation for doing so is that it reduces dropped packets, thus improving service reliability and quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gopinathan with Shetti to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Gopinathan in view of Shetti does not disclose “wherein adjusting the output buffer depth comprises transmitting, by the network device, a command to the modem to change a depth parameter of the FIFO output queue implemented within the modem.”
However, Sevindik discloses the missing features “wherein adjusting the output buffer depth comprises transmitting, by the network device, a command to the modem to change a depth parameter of the FIFO output queue implemented within the modem.” ([¶ 0140]: “Also, the size of the uplink buffers will be adjustable and may be, and in some embodiments is adjusted based on for example the data processing speed of the cable modem and/or other components in the system. The adjustments to the cable modem uplink data buffers may be, and in some embodiments are, implemented by the cable modem in response to instructions or information, e.g., updated buffer information, received from the wireless base station.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik, to modify the technique as disclosed by Gopinathan in view of Shetti, to involve an indication as disclosed by Sevindik. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents miscommunication, thus improving service reliability and quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gopinathan with Shetti and Sevindik to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “determining backward congestion of the modem, by the modem, based on the monitored traffic congestion during the predetermined time; and creating a notification regarding backward congestion, wherein the notification indicates presence or absence of backward congestion.” ([para 0090]: “In various embodiments, MAC control logic 720 may monitor the watermark thresholds in relation to buildup of IP packets 730 in buffer 722 and may provide congestion feedback to the host router (e.g., router 110, including processors/logic contained therein, for which the cellular interface is configured).”)
Regarding claim 3, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “wherein adjusting the output buffer depth of the modem comprises sending a command to the modem to change the output buffer depth of the modem based on the backward congestion by the network device.” ([para 0098]: “At 806, the operations can include adjusting the enqueueing of uplink packets into the MAC buffer based on the interrupt.” Wherein the “output buffer depth” feature is obvious in view of Shetti as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 4, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan does not disclose “wherein sending a command to the modem to change the output buffer depth of the modem comprises increasing the output buffer depth of the modem if there is no notification of backward congestion or immediately reducing the output buffer depth of the modem if there is a notification of backward congestion.”
However, Shetti discloses the missing features “wherein sending a command to the modem to change the output buffer depth of the modem comprises increasing the output buffer depth of the modem if there is no notification of backward congestion or immediately reducing the output buffer depth of the modem if there is a notification of backward congestion.” ([para 0046]: “For example, playback management device 245 can determine that a proxy connection associated with the application buffer is being utilized to transfer data to a portion of a network associated with a threshold congestion level, and can determine to reduce an application buffer size to reduce congestion associated with the portion of the network.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Gopinathan and Shetti, to modify the modem adjustment as disclosed by Gopinathan, to be an adjustment of buffer depth as disclosed by Shetti. The motivation for doing so is that it reduces dropped packets, thus improving service reliability and quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gopinathan with Shetti to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan in view of Shetti does not disclose “implementing a change of the output buffer depth by the modem and sending a message to the network device to confirm the change.”
However, Sevindik discloses the missing features “implementing a change of the output buffer depth by the modem and sending a message to the network device to confirm the change.” ([para 0222]: “…provide confirmation that cable modem instructions have been carried out, such as for example increasing a buffer size…”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik, to modify the technique as disclosed by Gopinathan in view of Shetti, to involve a confirmation as disclosed by Sevindik. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents miscommunication, thus improving service reliability and quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gopinathan with Shetti and Sevindik to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “wherein the network device comprises one or more of customer premises equipment (CPE), router, and/or cellular gateway.” ([para 0026]: “In various embodiments, router 110 can be one or more network appliances, servers, switches, gateways, bridges, loadbalancers, firewalls, processors, modules, customer premise equipment (CPE) or any other suitable device, component, element, or object operable to exchange information within communication system 100.”)
Regarding claim 7, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “wherein the modem is embedded in the network device.” ([para 0027]: “Referring to FIG. 1B, FIG. 1B is a simplified block diagram illustrating example details of I/O (e.g., cellular) interface 124.1 of router 110 in accordance with one embodiment of router 110. As shown in FIG. 1B, I/O interface 124.1 includes a cellular modem 150.”)
Regarding claim 8, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “wherein the modem is positioned outside the network device and embedded in a cellular gateway that communicates with the network device.” ([para 0100]: “In one example implementation, router 110 is a network element, which is meant to encompass network appliances, servers, switches, gateways, bridges, loadbalancers, firewalls, processors, modules, or any other suitable device, component, element, or object operable to exchange information that facilitates or otherwise helps coordinate and/or manage the dynamic bandwidth adjustments and/or other associated activities (e.g., adaptive QoS, load balancing, congestion latency reduction, etc.) for cellular interfaces (e.g., for networks such as those illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 5), as outlined herein. In other embodiments, these operations and/or features may be provided external to these elements, or included in some other network device to achieve this intended functionality.”)
Regarding claim 9, Gopinathan in view of Shetti and Sevindik discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “wherein the data APN interface comprises a plurality of data APN interfaces, wherein the communication interface comprises a plurality of communication interfaces coupled between the network operating system and the modem, wherein each of plurality of data APN interfaces has a respective one of the plurality of communication interfaces.” ([para 0026]: “As shown in FIG. 1A, host router interconnect 112 can provide for interconnection among various elements, logic, etc. within router 110. In various embodiments, host router interconnect 112 can include one or more electronic bus(es), one or more electronic circuit(s), hardware, software, combinations thereof or the like, which may facilitate the communication of data, information, etc. between the various elements, logic, etc. within router 110. In various embodiments, host router logic 118 can include one or more electronic circuit(s), hardware, software, combinations thereof or the like, which may facilitate various operations for router 110 and/or any combination of I/O interfaces 124.1-124.N, as may be configured for router 110.”)
Claims 10-14 and 15-18 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and 6-9 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-5 and 6-9 are directed towards a method while claims 10-13 and 15-18 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. The use of a non-transitory computer readable medium is taught by Gopinathan in paragraph 102. Thus, claims 10-14 and 15-18 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-5 and 6-9.
Regarding claim 20, Gopinathan in view of Shetti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Gopinathan further discloses “determining backward congestion of the modem, by the modem, based on the monitored traffic congestion during the predetermined time; and creating a notification regarding backward congestion, wherein the notification indicates presence or absence of backward congestion.” ([para 0090]: “In various embodiments, MAC control logic 720 may monitor the watermark thresholds in relation to buildup of IP packets 730 in buffer 722 and may provide congestion feedback to the host router (e.g., router 110, including processors/logic contained therein, for which the cellular interface is configured).”)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinathan (US 20200322280 A1) in view of Shetti (US 20180270170 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Gopinathan discloses:
“A network device comprising: a transceiver; a processor configured to execute instructions and cause the processor to:” ([¶ 0101]: “Any such storage options may be included within the broad term ‘memory element’ as used herein. Similarly, any of the potential processing elements, modules, hardware and machines described herein should be construed as being encompassed within the broad term ‘processor’. Each of the network elements and user equipment can also include suitable interfaces for receiving, transmitting, and/or otherwise communicating data or information in a network environment.”)
“establish, by a network device, an initial output buffer depth of a modem for a data access point name (APN) interface,” ([para 0083]: “As shown in FIG. 7A, cellular modem 150 can include transmitter 152 and receiver 154. In certain embodiments, transmitter 152 may receive uplink traffic (e.g., IP packets) via host router interconnect 112, which are to be transmitted to eNodeB 132, and receiver 154 may receive downlink traffic from eNodeB 132 and may route the traffic to host router interconnect 112 for further routing to another interface, process, etc. via router 110.”)
“wherein the output buffer comprises a first-in- first-out (FIFO) output queue of the modem that stores packets awaiting uplink transmission over a cellular radio interface” ([¶ 0086]: “When a data packet is sent to the cellular modem, the modem will buffer the packets in a transmit ring (e.g., a buffer) in the MAC layer and send a scheduling request to the eNodeB via the PHY layer in order to schedule the packets on the uplink radio bearer.”)
“wherein the network device comprises a network operating system and a communication interface coupled between the network operating system and the modem;” ([para 0068]: “On a router, if there are multiple 4G/LTE interfaces, the router internal operating system (IOS), logic, etc. will identify the cellular interfaces as identical (e.g., having a same path metric when it comes to making routing decisions) with respect to their data throughput capabilities.” See Fig. 5.)
“monitor traffic congestion of the modem during a predetermined time;” ([para 0097]: “At 802, the operations can include monitoring watermark thresholds for a MAC buffer (e.g., buffer 722) of a cellular modem (e.g., cellular modem 150) for a cellular interface (e.g., first I/O interface 124.1).”)
“receive notification of backward congestion or notification of no backward congestion from the modem; and” ([para 0090]: “In various embodiments, MAC control logic 720 may monitor the watermark thresholds in relation to buildup of IP packets 730 in buffer 722 and may provide congestion feedback to the host router (e.g., router 110, including processors/logic contained therein, for which the cellular interface is configured).”)
“adjust … the modem based on monitored traffic congestion.” ([para 0098]: “At 806, the operations can include adjusting the enqueueing of uplink packets into the MAC buffer based on the interrupt.”)
Gopinathan does not disclose “an initial output buffer depth” nor adjusting “output buffer depth”
However, Shetti discloses the missing features:
“an initial output buffer depth” ([para 0010]: “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 110, playback management device 102 can perform an initial buffer space allocation to configure TCP proxy 108 for a new TCP flow.”)
adjusting “output buffer depth” ([para 0046]: “For example, playback management device 245 can determine that a proxy connection associated with the application buffer is being utilized to transfer data to a portion of a network associated with a threshold congestion level, and can determine to reduce an application buffer size to reduce congestion associated with the portion of the network.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Gopinathan and Shetti, to modify the modem adjustment as disclosed by Gopinathan, to be an adjustment of buffer depth as disclosed by Shetti. The motivation for doing so is that it reduces dropped packets, thus improving service reliability and quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gopinathan with Shetti to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights