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 .
Note
Claims 15 and 18 recite ‘(Previously Presented 1)’ These should be ‘(Previously Presented)’. Please ensure you are using correct status markers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-6, 9, 11-14, 15-20, 23, and 25-30, Applicant argues that ‘…He does not teach or suggest determining a ratio based on an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. To the contrary, He bases its weight assignments on individual link bandwidths. Sze does not cure the deficiencies of He. Sze uses the aggregate rate of available connections to set a video encoding/compression rate…’ Examiner disagrees. First, as highlighted by Applicant’s arguments the claims are indefinite. It is unclear what the ratio is actually of. As written, it could be a first ratio of first traffic and a first ratio of second traffic; or it could be a first ratio of the combined first and second traffic or it could mean a first ratio of the first traffic to the second traffic. But the claims contradict each other. This is not breadth. Please see the 112 for more detail.
Second, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). He discloses, in fig.1, Section II, traffic directed to each link is 1/Nth of total traffic (e.g. a ratio); in section IV; links with different bandwidth (e.g. a characteristic of multiple links) are scheduled to maximize aggregated TCP throughput; in fig. 1, section IV, transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2); in section II, para. 2; fraction of packets assigned to each link; and in section IV, pg. 601, link weight assignments should be proportional to component links bandwidth (e.g. a ratio being amount of sent on each link). That is, He discloses several different ratios that could be applied to maximize bandwidth. The links may have different bandwidth and are scheduled to maximize aggregate TCP throughput.
Sze discloses, in para. 82, packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes and each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth. That is, He discloses several ratios that could be used or combined to maximize bandwidth. Sze discloses that the aggregate rate of all available connections should be used to maximize throughput. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to combine to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals. In other words, Applicant’s arguments that the He and Sze fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive of error because the arguments fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
Further, Examiner has provided some additional rejections of the independent claims to show that Applicant’s claims are far too broad.
Regarding claims 15, 29, and 30, Applicant argues similarly with regard to claim 1. Please see the arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Specifically, Applicant argues that claims are allowable based upon dependency. Examiner disagrees. Please see the arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding claims 10 and 24, Applicant argues based upon dependency. Specifically, Applicant argues that claims are allowable based upon dependency. Examiner disagrees. Please see the arguments above and rejections below.
Regarding new claim 31, Applicant argues that He in view of Sze does not disclose ‘…the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) packets for the data packets, and wherein determining the first ratio is based on whether a link of the multiple links can support an amount of the ACK packets given an amount of the data packets…’ Examiner agrees that these references alone do not teach all of the limitations. Please see the rejection below where new reference Kanamarlapudi is introduced.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 31, 15-20, 22-27, 29, and 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-14, and 31, claim 1 recites ‘…determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic…’ This limitation is unclear. What is the first ratio of? Is it first traffic to second traffic or ‘first traffic and second traffic’ to something else? Claim 1 suggests it is the latter, but the dependent claims then inconsistently recite the first ratio is not of the links but there are multiple ratios for each link (see for example claim 4) It is unclear how a first ratio of links is actually multiple ratios for individual links. That is the meaning has no consistency; it changes based upon the claim and has no nexus to the previous meaning. Claim 14, for example, comes up with an entirely different meaning of the word ‘and’. Now ‘and’ actually means ‘to’. That is, claim 14 is actually claiming two ratios and two different allocations which are different for each link. That does not gel with what claim 1 states. Claim 11 now says that there is a second ratio of first traffic and second traffic on multiple links after expiration. So, this implies that there is one ratio applied across all of the links. Claim 31 seems to now suggest that ‘and’ actually means ‘to’ in claim 1. Further, claim 1 is unclear because it is not clear if the first ratio is of first traffic and the first ratio is of second traffic; or if applicant is claiming there is a first ratio of the total traffic to something else not in the claim. Therefore, the claims are unclear. Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 31 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 15-20, 22-27, claim 15 recites ‘…determine a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic…’ This limitation is unclear. What is the first ratio of? Is it first traffic to second traffic or ‘first traffic and second traffic’ to something else? Claim 15 suggests it is the latter, but the dependent claims then inconsistently recite the first ratio is not of the links but there are multiple ratios for each link (see for example claim 18) It is unclear how a first ratio of links is actually multiple ratios for individual links. That is the meaning has no consistency; it changes based upon the claim and has no nexus to the previous meaning. Claim 25 now says that there is a second ratio of first traffic and second traffic on multiple links after expiration. So, this implies that there is one ratio applied across all of the links. Further, claim 1 is unclear because it is not clear if the first ratio is of first traffic and the first ratio is of second traffic; or if applicant is claiming there is a first ratio of the total traffic to something else not in the claim. Therefore, the claims are unclear. Claims 16-20, 22-27 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites ‘…determine a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic…’ This limitation is unclear. What is the first ratio of? Is it first traffic to second traffic or ‘first traffic and second traffic’ to something else? Claim 29 is unclear because it is not clear if the first ratio is of first traffic and the first ratio is of second traffic; or if applicant is claiming there is a first ratio of the total traffic to something else not in the claim. Therefore, the claims are unclear.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites ‘…determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic…’ This limitation is unclear. What is the first ratio of? Is it first traffic to second traffic or ‘first traffic and second traffic’ to something else? Claim 1 is unclear because it is not clear if the first ratio is of first traffic and the first ratio is of second traffic; or if applicant is claiming there is a first ratio of the total traffic to something else not in the claim. Therefore, the claims are unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 1, He discloses a method for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See He fig.1, Section II; traffic directed to each link is 1/Nth of total traffic (e.g. a ratio); Traffic is TCP; section IV; links with different bandwidth (e.g. a characteristic of multiple links) are scheduled to maximize aggregated TCP throughput which can be maximized; see also abstract, section I) (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He section II, para. 2; fraction of packets assigned to each link; section IV, pg. 601; link weight assignments should be proportional to component links bandwidth (e.g. a ratio being amount of sent on each link ) (See also 112 rejection)
outputting the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See He fig.1, Section II; section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also section IV, A, 1st para.)
He does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
Regarding claim 2, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises obtaining the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the first traffic comprises data packets; and
the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets. (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2))
Regarding claim 3, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises obtaining the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the second traffic comprises data packets; and
the first traffic comprises ACK for the data packets. (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
Regarding claim 4, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises obtaining the second traffic from the second wireless node in response to transmitting the first traffic; and
determining the first ratio comprises determining to dedicate the first traffic to a first link of the multiple links, the second traffic being dedicated to a second link of the multiple links. (See He fig.1, section IV, A, para. 1; forwarding data on link0 and link 1 (e.g. dedicated) and all ACKs on link 2 (e.g. dedicated); ACKs (e.g. second traffic) are in response to traffic (e.g. first traffic) on other links)
Regarding claim 5, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises one or more data rates associated with the one or more of the multiple links. (See He pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates))
Regarding claim 6, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more data rates comprises a data rate of each of the multiple links. (See He pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also fig. 2; 1Mbit/s and 10Mbit/s links)
Regarding claim 9, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a difference between data rates of the multiple links. (See He Section I, first para.; section II 2nd paragraph; weighting is applied to the links based upon the difference in data rates (e.g. higher data rate links are given more; while lower data rate links are given less))
Regarding claim 11, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transmission is in accordance with the first ratio for a time period, the method further comprising determining a second ratio of the first traffic and the second traffic on the multiple links after expiration of the time period. (See He section V, 3rd para., section II, 3rd para.; count number of bytes transferred on each link in a specified period of time to calculate available bandwidth; dynamically adjusting weights as network conditions change (e.g. do a first ratio; then when network conditions change, do a 2nd ratio based upon the measured ability of the links which is measured over a certain period of time)
Regarding claim 12, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising assessing link performance on each of the one or more of the multiple links, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises the link performance. (See He section V, 3rd para., section II, 3rd para.; count number of bytes transferred on each link in a specified period of time to calculate available bandwidth and weighting the traffic based upon available bandwidth)
Regarding claim 13, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises obtaining the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets; and (See He section IV, A, para. 1; second traffic is ACKs of first traffic)
the at least one characteristic comprises a latency associated with the second traffic including the ACK for the data packets. (See He section V, 2nd, 3rd para.; link weights are based upon round-trip latency (e.g. which includes time to transmit and receive a response (e.g. ACK) from the other node); see also section IV, 2nd para., IV, A, 1st para.)
Regarding claim 14, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the method further comprises obtaining the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets; and (See He section IV, A, para. 1; second traffic is ACKs of first traffic)
determining the first ratio comprises allocating a greater amount of the first traffic including the data packets to a first link of the multiple links than a second link of the multiple links based on the first link having a higher data rate than the second link. (See He section IV, B; one link is 1MBs and 10MBs (e.g. one is higher) and allocating based upon throughput of these links; see also A, 1st para., section V, 2nd, 3rd para.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197) and further in view of Subramanian (8,014,278).
Regarding claim 8, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising determining a second ratio of the first traffic and the second traffic the multiple links (See He section II, last paragraph; dynamically adjusting weights as network conditions change)
He does not explicitly disclose adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold. However, Subramanian does disclose adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold. (See Subramanian fig. 5-8; when a link is above a threshold rate adjusting the traffic distribution; see also col. 6, lines 10-27) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold of Subramanian with the motivation being to prevent buffer overrun and further to reduce potential delays and further to smooth out flows across all links and further to more efficiently utilize network resources.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197) and further in view of Panchal (10,609,546).
Regarding claim 10, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1. He does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link. However, Panchal does disclose wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link. (See Panchal fig. 5; box 510, 520, 560; identifying a bearer (e.g. link) that meets the low-latency requirement of the traffic flow) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link of Panchal with the motivation being to meet end user goals and further to increase satisfaction (by meeting requirements) and further to increase real-time data quality by reducing jitter and/or delay poor quality video, sound, etc. and further to utilize network resources efficiently by meeting requirements but not over utilizing high quality links.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197) and further in view of Kanamarlapudi (2015/0215218).
Regarding claim 31, He in view of Sze discloses the method of claim 1. He discloses that the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprise (ACK packets. (See He fig. 1, section IV) He also discloses that a fraction of packets assigned to each link weighted according to component links bandwidth. (See He section II, para. 2; section IV, pg. 601)
He in view of Sze does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of ACK packets is related to the amount of data packets. However, Kanamarlapudi does disclose wherein the amount of ACK packets is related to the amount of data packets. (See Kanamarlapudi para. 22, 23) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He in view of Sze to include the teaching of wherein the amount of ACK packets is related to the amount of data packets of Kanamarlapudi with the motivation being to assure that the total expected amount of traffic on a link can be accurately predicted and thusly maintaining throughput and avoiding delays and further to predict necessary network resources so as to efficiently utilize what is available and further to meet user demands while not over allocating unnecessarily(over allocating would be inefficient use of resources).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (2022/0124588) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a method for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: (See Zhu fig. 1, para. 25; MX1 node (e.g. first wireless node))
determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic (See Zhu para. 52; traffic splitting update message carriers traffic splitting/steering configuration parameters including a split ratio); splitting of one or multiple flows (e.g. first and second traffic)) on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, (See Zhu para. 36; traffic steering (splitting) is based upon QoS related measurements loss, delay, signal strength, etc. (e.g. a characteristic of link)), wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See Zhu para. 150, fig. 10; TCP, IP etc.)
outputting the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See Zhu para. 151,152; fig. 11; GMA Tx sends one or more packets to NAN 711A and one or more packets to NAN 711B for delivery to GMA Rx 1111/client 701; para. 171; traffic are split or distributed to different networks or RATs for delivery)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhu to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
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.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 15, He discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of the one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See He fig.1, Section II; traffic directed to each link is 1/Nth of total traffic (e.g. a ratio); Traffic is TCP; section IV; links with different bandwidth (e.g. a characteristic of multiple links) are scheduled to maximize aggregated TCP throughput which can be maximized; see also abstract, section I) (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He section II, para. 2; fraction of packets assigned to each link; section IV, pg. 601; link weight assignments should be proportional to component links bandwidth (e.g. a ratio being amount of sent on each link ) (See also 112 rejection)
outputting the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See He fig.1, Section II; section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also section IV, A, 1st para.)
He does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
He does not explicitly disclose wherein node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. However, Sze does disclose wherein the node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. (See Sze para. 190; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of He to include the teaching of wherein the wireless node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors of Sze with the motivation being to allow for easy updating of algorithms for improved performance, features, and security and further it is common sense (that is, in order for a wireless node to operate, at a minimum it must have a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transmitter and/or receiver).
Regarding claim 16, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions further cause the apparatus to obtain the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the first traffic comprises data packets; and
the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets. (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2))
Regarding claim 17, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions further cause the apparatus to obtain the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the second traffic comprises data packets; and
the first traffic comprises ACK for the data packets. (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
Regarding claim 18, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions further cause the apparatus to obtain the second traffic from the second wireless node in response to transmitting the first traffic; and
determining the first ratio comprises determining to dedicate the first traffic to a first link of the multiple links, the second traffic being dedicated to a second link of the multiple links. (See He fig.1, section IV, A, para. 1; forwarding data on link0 and link 1 (e.g. dedicated) and all ACKs on link 2 (e.g. dedicated); ACKs (e.g. second traffic) are in response to traffic (e.g. first traffic) on other links)
Regarding claim 19, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises one or more data rates associated with the one or more of the multiple links. (See He pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates))
Regarding claim 20, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the one or more data rates comprises a data rate of each of the multiple links. (See He pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also fig. 2; 1Mbit/s and 10Mbit/s links)
Regarding claim 23, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a difference between data rates of the multiple links. (See He Section I, first para.; section II 2nd paragraph; weighting is applied to the links based upon the difference in data rates (e.g. higher data rate links are given more; while lower data rate links are given less))
Regarding claim 25, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the transmission is in accordance with the first ratio for a time period, the instructions further cause the apparatus to determine a second ratio of the first traffic on each of one or more of the multiple links after expiration of the time period. (See He section V, 3rd para., section II, 3rd para.; count number of bytes transferred on each link in a specified period of time to calculate available bandwidth; dynamically adjusting weights as network conditions change (e.g. do a first ratio; then when network conditions change, do a 2nd ratio based upon the measured ability of the links which is measured over a certain period of time)
Regarding claim 26, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to assess link performance on each of the one or more of the multiple links, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises the link performance. (See He section V, 3rd para., section II, 3rd para.; count number of bytes transferred on each link in a specified period of time to calculate available bandwidth and weighting the traffic based upon available bandwidth)
Regarding claim 27, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions further cause the apparatus to obtain the second traffic from the second wireless node;
the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets; and (See He section IV, A, para. 1; second traffic is ACKs of first traffic)
the at least one characteristic comprises a latency associated with the second traffic including the ACK for the data packets. (See He section V, 2nd, 3rd para.; link weights are based upon round-trip latency (e.g. which includes time to transmit and receive a response (e.g. ACK) from the other node); see also section IV, 2nd para., IV, A, 1st para.)
Regarding claim 28, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein:
the instructions further cause the apparatus to obtain the second traffic from the second wireless node; and
the first traffic comprises data packets and the second traffic comprises acknowledgement (ACK) for the data packets; and (See He section IV, A, para. 1; second traffic is ACKs of first traffic)
to determine the first ratio, the instructions further cause the apparatus to allocate a greater amount of the first traffic including the data packets to a first link of the multiple links than a second link of the multiple links based on the first link having a higher data rate than the second link. (See He section IV, B; one link is 1MBs and 10MBs (e.g. one is higher) and allocating based upon throughput of these links; see also A, 1st para., section V, 2nd, 3rd para.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197) and further in view of Subramanian (8,014,278).
Regarding claim 22, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 19, determining a second ratio of the first traffic and the second traffic on each of the one or more of the multiple links (See He section II, last paragraph; dynamically adjusting weights as network conditions change)
He does not explicitly disclose adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold. However, Subramanian does disclose adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold. (See Subramanian fig. 5-8; when a link is above a threshold rate adjusting the traffic distribution; see also col. 6, lines 10-27) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of adjusting traffic distribution on links based upon changing data rates on these links being more than a threshold of Subramanian with the motivation being to prevent buffer overrun and further to reduce potential delays and further to smooth out flows across all links and further to more efficiently utilize network resources.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197) and further in view of Panchal (10,609,546).
Regarding claim 24, He in view of Sze discloses the apparatus of claim 15. He does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link. However, Panchal does disclose wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link. (See Panchal fig. 5; box 510, 520, 560; identifying a bearer (e.g. link) that meets the low-latency requirement of the traffic flow) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of wherein the at least one characteristic comprises whether a link can support the first traffic being dedicated to the link of Panchal with the motivation being to meet end user goals and further to increase satisfaction (by meeting requirements) and further to increase real-time data quality by reducing jitter and/or delay poor quality video, sound, etc. and further to utilize network resources efficiently by meeting requirements but not over utilizing high quality links.
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.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (2022/0124588) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: (See Zhu fig. 1, para. 25; MX1 node (e.g. first wireless node))
one or more processors;
memory coupled with the one or more processors; and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to: (See Zhu para. 33, fig. 19; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
determine a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic (See Zhu para. 52; traffic splitting update message carriers traffic splitting/steering configuration parameters including a split ratio); splitting of one or multiple flows (e.g. first and second traffic)) on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, (See Zhu para. 36; traffic steering (splitting) is based upon QoS related measurements loss, delay, signal strength, etc. (e.g. a characteristic of link)) wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See Zhu para. 150, fig. 10; TCP, IP etc.)
output the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance
with the first ratio. (See Zhu para. 151,152; fig. 11; GMA Tx sends one or more packets to NAN 711A and one or more packets to NAN 711B for delivery to GMA Rx 1111/client 701; para. 171; traffic are split or distributed to different networks or RATs for delivery)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhu to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 29, He discloses a method, comprising (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See He fig.1, Section II; traffic directed to each link is 1/Nth of total traffic (e.g. a ratio); Traffic is TCP; section IV; links with different bandwidth (e.g. a characteristic of multiple links) are scheduled to maximize aggregated TCP throughput which can be maximized; see also abstract, section I) (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He section II, para. 2; fraction of packets assigned to each link; section IV, pg. 601; link weight assignments should be proportional to component links bandwidth (e.g. a ratio being amount of sent on each link ) (See also 112 rejection)
outputting the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See He fig.1, Section II; section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also section IV, A, 1st para.)
He does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
He does not explicitly disclose wherein node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. However, Sze does disclose wherein the node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. (See Sze para. 190; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of He to include the teaching of wherein the wireless node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors of Sze with the motivation being to allow for easy updating of algorithms for improved performance, features, and security and further it is common sense (that is, in order for a wireless node to operate, at a minimum it must have a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transmitter and/or receiver).
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (2022/0124588) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 29, Zhu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors at a first wireless node, cause the one or more processors to: (See Zhu para. 33, fig. 19; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
determine a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic (See Zhu para. 52; traffic splitting update message carriers traffic splitting/steering configuration parameters including a split ratio); splitting of one or multiple flows (e.g. first and second traffic)) on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, (See Zhu para. 36; traffic steering (splitting) is based upon QoS related measurements loss, delay, signal strength, etc. (e.g. a characteristic of link)), wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See Zhu para. 150, fig. 10; TCP, IP etc.)
output the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See Zhu para. 151,152; fig. 11; GMA Tx sends one or more packets to NAN 711A and one or more packets to NAN 711B for delivery to GMA Rx 1111/client 701; para. 171; traffic are split or distributed to different networks or RATs for delivery)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhu to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (“NATALIE: An Adaptive, Network-Aware Traffic Equalizer” Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Communication (ICC 2007); June 2007), and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 30, He discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising: (See He fig. 1; Node 0 or Node 1 (e.g. first Node or second node); Intro, para. 1; wireless links (e.g. wireless communication))
determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See He fig.1, Section II; traffic directed to each link is 1/Nth of total traffic (e.g. a ratio); Traffic is TCP; section IV; links with different bandwidth (e.g. a characteristic of multiple links) are scheduled to maximize aggregated TCP throughput which can be maximized; see also abstract, section I) (See He fig.1, section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; traffic is data packets and ACK packets (on link2)) (See He section II, para. 2; fraction of packets assigned to each link; section IV, pg. 601; link weight assignments should be proportional to component links bandwidth (e.g. a ratio being amount of sent on each link ) (See also 112 rejection)
outputting the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See He fig.1, Section II; section IV; transmitting traffic data according to a scheme to maximize bandwidth based upon a ratio; pg. 601; section IV, last paragraph; link weight assignments between links should be proportional to the component links’ bandwidths (e.g. data rates); see also section IV, A, 1st para.)
He does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of He to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
He does not explicitly disclose wherein node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. However, Sze does disclose wherein the node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors. (See Sze para. 190; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of He to include the teaching of wherein the wireless node has one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors of Sze with the motivation being to allow for easy updating of algorithms for improved performance, features, and security and further it is common sense (that is, in order for a wireless node to operate, at a minimum it must have a processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and a transmitter and/or receiver).
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (2022/0124588) and further in view of Sze (2018/0310197).
Regarding claim 30, Zhu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a first wireless node, comprising:
Means for determining a first ratio of a first traffic and a second traffic (See Zhu para. 52; traffic splitting update message carriers traffic splitting/steering configuration parameters including a split ratio); splitting of one or multiple flows (e.g. first and second traffic)) on multiple links between the first wireless node and a second wireless node based on at least one characteristic of one or more of the multiple links, (See Zhu para. 36; traffic steering (splitting) is based upon QoS related measurements loss, delay, signal strength, etc. (e.g. a characteristic of link)) wherein the first traffic comprises Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) or Internet Protocol (IP) traffic; and (See Zhu para. 150, fig. 10; TCP, IP etc.)
Means for outputing the first traffic for transmission to the second wireless node in accordance with the first ratio. (See Zhu para. 151,152; fig. 11; GMA Tx sends one or more packets to NAN 711A and one or more packets to NAN 711B for delivery to GMA Rx 1111/client 701; para. 171; traffic are split or distributed to different networks or RATs for delivery) (See Zhu para. 33, fig. 19; means for are processor executing an algorithm stored in memory and other component necessary for processing)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. However, Sze does disclose the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links. (See Sze para. 82; packets are encoded based upon aggregate rate of all available connections and adjustments are made upon individual connection changes; each packet is directed to one of the connections based upon reported available bandwidth) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Zhu to include the teaching of the at least one characteristic including an aggregate data rate of the multiple links of Sze with the motivation being to load balance the data and further to prevent data rate disruption caused by link issues including but not limited to signal quality, other traffic, etc. and further to meet end user goals by utilizing available resources in such a way so as to meet those goals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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 D 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights