DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 19, and 30 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. See rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-20,22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1, Does the claim falls within the statutory categories of invention? (Yes): Independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are directed to an apparatus and method for wireless communication, which falls within the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited (Yes): The claim includes the steps of “generating an inference” using a ML model which is fundamentally a mathematical calculation. Further, the claims includes the steps of “receiving information”, “receiving inputs” and “using the inference to make a decision regarding a handover” are concepts that can be performed in the human mind, e.g., an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application (No): The claim only recites generic computer components (i.e., transceiver, memory, processors) to perform the abstract idea. The claim limits the abstract idea to the field of “wireless communication” and “handover decisions” but does not include additional details to transform the abstract idea into a practical application and/or how the computer’s functionality is improved.
Step 2B: Does it recite “Significantly More”? (No): The claim recites the use of ML models for data analysis and decision making which is a “well-understood, routine, and conventional” activity in the field of wireless communications. The claim further recites the concepts of receiving information/inputs and make a decision about handover which are mere extra-solution activities that do not add an inventive concept to the underlying abstract idea.
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 1-3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-20, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y (WO 2021/123285) in view of MOHANDAS et al. (US 2015/0365911).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 5, page 8, lines 22-27; communication device 270), comprising:
at least one transceiver (Fig. 5; transmitter 296/receiver292), one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions (page 12, lines 31-33); and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (Fig. 5; the wireless communication unit includes a handover control unit, cell measurement unit, etc., thus one or more processors are inherent) and cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, information regarding a machine learning (ML) model (page 12, lines 31-36; the communication device may receive a representation of the model, which is stored in memory of the communications device);
receive, via the at least one transceiver, inputs for the ML model (Fig. 6, step S602; abstract and page 13, lines 19-22);
provide the inputs to the ML model to generate an inference (abstract and page 13, lines 21-22; page 12, lines 7-20; the one or more input parameters are used as inputs to a model trained using machine learning, and determining an output (i.e., inference)); and
use the inference to make a decision regarding a handover of the apparatus from at least a first access point (AP) device to a second AP device (abstract; page 12, lines 7-20; page 13, lines 21-22; based on the output (i.e., inference), a determination is made as to whether a handover should be performed, and in some embodiments, which of the plurality of candidate cells should be the target cell).
Wei further discloses that the disclosure has in some respects focused on implementations in an LTE-based and/or 5G network, the same principles can be applied to other wireless telecommunications systems (page 24, lines 34-40).
But, does not particularly disclose a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity.
However, Mohandas teaches a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity (p. [0037], [0039]; WLAN controller can manage and control communications with a plurality of access points, the WLAN controllers may be configured in a same mobility domain, thus allowing the wireless device to roam between APs (i.e., first and second AP) in the same mobility domain without needing to perform authentication at each AP, the APs are associated with a wireless controllers with a same mobility domain, thus the wireless controller is considered as a single mobility device SMD entity).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wei to implement the invention in a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity, as taught by Mohandas, since such a modification provide the advantage that would allow wireless devices to roam between APs without needing to perform authentication at each AP.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein the information regarding the ML model is received from at least one of: the first AP device or a wireless node (page 12, lines 31-39; page 22, lines 1-6 and 40-43; the communication device may receive the model via a wireless interface from a modelling entity, the modelling entity may comprise a core network equipment or an infrastructure equipment (e.g., access point)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein the information is at least one of: used as input to the ML model; used to configure the ML model; or the ML model (page 12, lines 31-36; the communication device may receive a representation of the model, which is stored in memory of the communications device).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein receiving at least some of the inputs comprises at least one of measuring or observing one or more metrics at the apparatus (page 12, lines 7-17; page 15, line 38-page 16, lines 1-20; page 20, lines 3-11).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 9, Wei discloses wherein the metrics comprises one or more metrics measured for the candidate links (page 12, lines 7-17; page 15, line 38-page 16, lines 1-20; page 20, lines 3-11).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 9, Wei discloses wherein the one or more metrics relate to at least one of loading, interruption, mobility information, a number of observed service set identifiers, flow priority, or link capacity (page 16, lines 11-20; one or more parameters may be transmitted from the communications device, the parameters may include mobility parameters).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein obtaining the inputs comprises receiving at least one of one or more metrics or one or more ML model parameters from at least one of: the first AP device or another wireless node (page 16, lines 11-20; one or more parameters may be transmitted from the communications device (i.e., wireless node), the parameters may include mobility parameters).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein the inference relates to at least one of:
a roaming parameter;
a roaming decision (page 13, lines 19-25; based on the input values and model ,a determination is made on whether a handover should occur (i.e., roaming decision)); or
an estimated performance metric associated with a roaming parameter.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1,Wei discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to receive, from the first AP or a wireless node via the at least one transceiver, signaling indicating (page 20 , lines 25-27; the model may be updated offline, e.g., not within the communications device, and a representation of the updated model transferred to the communications device) at least one of:
whether the apparatus can tune the ML model;
when the apparatus can use the ML model; or
one or more updates to the ML model or other ML models (page 20 , lines 25-27; the model may be updated offline, e.g., not within the communications device, and a representation of the updated model transferred to the communications device).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to operate as a wireless station (STA) (Fig. 5; page 8, lines 23 27).
Regarding claim 19, Wei discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 7, target infrastructure equipment gNB2), comprising:
at least one transceiver (Fig. 5; transmitter 296/receiver292), one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions (inherent in a infrastructure equipment); and
one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (inherent in a infrastructure equipment) to cause the apparatus to:
receive, via the at least one transceiver, information regarding at least one of:
a machine learning (ML) model designed to generate an inference to aid in making a decision regarding a handover of a wireless node from at least a first access point (AP) device to a second AP device; or
inputs for the ML model (Fig. 7, step S706; page 16, lines 28-38; the target infrastructure equipment receive input parameter values from the source infrastructure equipment); and
transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the information to the wireless node (page 16, lines 32-38; page 17, lines 1-5; the target infrastructure equipment determine based on input parameter values, whether handover should occur; the target infrastructure equipment transmit signaling to the UE responsive to the handover decision S708).
Wei further discloses that the disclosure has in some respects focused on implementations in an LTE-based and/or 5G network, the same principles can be applied to other wireless telecommunications systems (page 24, lines 34-40).
But, does not particularly disclose a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity.
However, Mohandas teaches a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity (p. [0037], [0039]; WLAN controller can manage and control communications with a plurality of access points, the WLAN controllers may be configured in a same mobility domain, thus allowing the wireless device to roam between APs (i.e., first and second AP) in the same mobility domain without needing to perform authentication at each AP, the APs are associated with a wireless controllers with a same mobility domain, thus the wireless controller is considered as a single mobility device SMD entity).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wei to implement the invention in a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity, as taught by Mohandas, since such a modification provide the advantage that would allow wireless devices to roam between APs without needing to perform authentication at each AP.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 19, Wei discloses wherein at least some of the information is received, via the at least one transceiver, from at least one of: the second AP, the wireless node, or another wireless node (page 16, lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 19, Wei discloses wherein the inference relates to at least one of:
a roaming parameter;
a roaming decision (page 13, lines 19-25; based on the input values and model ,a determination is made on whether a handover should occur (i.e., roaming decision)); or
an estimated performance metric associated with a roaming parameter.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, Wei discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit, to the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, signaling indicating (page 20 , lines 25-27; the model may be updated offline, e.g., not within the communications device, and a representation of the updated model transferred to the communications device) at least one of:
whether the apparatus can tune the ML model;
when the apparatus can use the ML model; or
one or more updates to the ML model or other ML models (page 20 , lines 25-27; the model may be updated offline, e.g., not within the communications device, and a representation of the updated model transferred to the communications device).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 19,Wei discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to operate as the first AP device (Fig. 7, target infrastructure equipment gNB2).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose a method for wireless communication by a wireless node (Fig. 5, page 8, lines 22-27; communication device 270), comprising:
receiving information regarding a machine learning (ML) model (page 12, lines 31-36; the communication device may receive a representation of the model, which is stored in memory of the communications device);
receiving inputs for the ML model (Fig. 6, step S602; abstract and page 13, lines 19-22);
providing the inputs to the ML model to generate an inference (abstract and page 13, lines 21-22; page 12, lines 7-20; the one or more input parameters are used as inputs to a model trained using machine learning, and determining an output (i.e., inference)); and
using the inference to make a decision regarding a handover of the apparatus from at least a first access point (AP) device to a second AP device (abstract; page 12, lines 7-20; page 13, lines 21-22; based on the output (i.e., inference), a determination is made as to whether a handover should be performed, and in some embodiments, which of the plurality of candidate cells should be the target cell).
Wei further discloses that the disclosure has in some respects focused on implementations in an LTE-based and/or 5G network, the same principles can be applied to other wireless telecommunications systems (page 24, lines 34-40).
But, does not particularly disclose a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity.
However, Mohandas teaches a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity (p. [0037], [0039]; WLAN controller can manage and control communications with a plurality of access points, the WLAN controllers may be configured in a same mobility domain, thus allowing the wireless device to roam between APs (i.e., first and second AP) in the same mobility domain without needing to perform authentication at each AP, the APs are associated with a wireless controllers with a same mobility domain, thus the wireless controller is considered as a single mobility device SMD entity).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wei to implement the invention in a wireless telecommunication system wherein the first AP device and the second AP device are affiliated with a single mobility device (SMD) entity, as taught by Mohandas, since such a modification provide the advantage that would allow wireless devices to roam between APs without needing to perform authentication at each AP.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y in views of MOHANDAS et al., and LOVISON F (WO 2024/238673).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from at least the first AP device via the at least one transceiver, a request for roaming information; and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a response including roaming information.
However, Lovison teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from at least the first AP device via the at least one transceiver, a request for roaming information; and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a response including roaming information (P. [0021], [0024], [0030]; the client STA may send a beacon report (i.e., response with roaming information) to the AP 105-1, allowing the AP 105-1 to be aware of the others APs (i.e., observed APs) that STA may heard in order to approximate the location of the STA, the AP makes roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the STA, note that providing information based on a request is well-known in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to determine roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the communication device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wei, Mohandas, and Lovison disclose the apparatus of claim 6, Lovison discloses wherein the roaming information comprises at least one of: a number of APs observed by the apparatus, packet statistics, one or more metrics regarding at least one of link loading or random back off interruptions (P. [0021], [0024], [0030]; the client STA may send a beacon report to the AP 105-1, allowing the AP 105-1 to be aware of the others APs (i.e., observed APs) that STA may heard in order to approximate the location of the STA, the AP makes roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the STA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to determine roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the communication device.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 14, but does not particularly disclose wherein the metrics comprise one or more metrics for at least one of: one or more candidate APs or one or more candidate links.
However, Lovison teaches wherein the metrics comprise one or more metrics for at least one of: one or more candidate APs or one or more candidate links (p. [0035], [0041]; each AP is evaluated to select optimal candidate for roaming, a variety of factors may be considered within the evaluation but not limited to, the RFs environment’s characteristics, e.g., signal strength, channel utilization, load or capacity of each AP, STA’s location and movement patterns, and its specific connectivity requirements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to evaluate a plurality of factors (i.e., metrics) regarding each of the APs in order to recommend an AP with the highest score for roaming.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 19, but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, a request for roaming information; and receive, from the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, a response including roaming information.
However, Lovison teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, a request for roaming information; and receive, from the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, a response including roaming information (P. [0021], [0024], [0030]; the client STA may send a beacon report (i.e., response with roaming information) to the AP 105-1, allowing the AP 105-1 to be aware of the others APs (i.e., observed APs) that STA may heard in order to approximate the location of the STA, the AP makes roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the STA, note that providing information based on a request is well-known in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to determine roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the communication device.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Wei, Mohandas, and Lovison disclose the apparatus of claim 23, Lovison discloses wherein the roaming information comprises at least one of: a number of APs observed by the wireless node, packet statistics, one or more metrics regarding at least one of link loading or random back off interruptions (P. [0021], [0024], [0030]; the client STA may send a beacon report (i.e., output) to the AP 105-1, allowing the AP 105-1 to be aware of the others APs (i.e., observed APs) that STA may heard in order to approximate the location of the STA, the AP makes roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the STA). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to determine roaming recommendations based on the information provided by the communication device.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wei, Mohandas, and Lovison disclose the apparatus of claim 19, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information comprises at least one of: information regarding different ML models for different traffic flows, one or more metrics, or one or more ML model parameters.
However, Lovison teaches wherein the information comprises at least one of: information regarding different ML models for different traffic flows, one or more metrics, or one or more ML model parameters (p. [0035], [0041]; each AP is evaluated to select optimal candidate for roaming, a variety of factors may be considered within the evaluation but not limited to, the RFs environment’s characteristics, e.g., signal strength, channel utilization, load or capacity of each AP, STA’s location and movement patterns, and its specific connectivity requirements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to evaluate a plurality of factors (i.e., metrics) regarding each of the APs in order to recommend an AP with the highest score for roaming.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wei, Mohandas, and Lovison disclose the apparatus of claim 25, Lovison discloses wherein the metrics comprise one or more metrics for at least one of: one or more candidate APs or one or more candidate links (p. [0035], [0041]; each AP is evaluated to select optimal candidate for roaming, a variety of factors may be considered within the evaluation but not limited to, the RFs environment’s characteristics, e.g., signal strength, channel utilization, load or capacity of each AP, STA’s location and movement patterns, and its specific connectivity requirements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Lovison, since such a modification would allow to evaluate a plurality of factors (i.e., metrics) regarding each of the APs in order to recommend an AP with the highest score for roaming.
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y in views of MOHANDAS et al., and LIAO Q (WO 2022/258196).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a request for the ML model, wherein at least some of the information is received in response to the request.
However, Liao teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver,, a request for the ML model, wherein at least some of the information is received in response to the request (page 26, lines 22-31; UE determines when it needs to download a model and sends a request to obtain the appropriate model for the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Liao, since such a modification would allow the communication apparatus to obtain the model when needed and obtain an appropriate model for the communication apparatus.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 19, but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from the wireless node via the at least one transceiver, a request for the ML model, wherein at least some of the information is transmitted in response to the request.
However, Liao teaches wherein one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, from the wireless node via the transceiver, a request for the ML model, wherein at least some of the information is transmitted in response to the request (page 26, lines 22-31; UE determines when it needs to download a model and sends a request to obtain the appropriate model for the UE, the UE obtains the model in response to the request). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Liao, since such a modification would allow the communication apparatus to obtain the model when needed and obtain an appropriate model for the communication apparatus.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y in view of RYDEN H (WO 2022/015221).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the information comprises information regarding different ML models for different traffic flows.
However, Ryden teaches wherein the information comprises information regarding different ML models for different traffic flows (page 2, lines 17-35; page 6, lines 13-22; a ML model from a plurality of models can be downloaded to the wireless device…the network may determine whether to download one or more ML models to the UE based at least on information of a behavior of the UE and a radio environment experienced by the UE, the behavior may include a radio traffic pattern of the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Ryden, since such a modification would allow to select a model that is adapted for the traffic pattern associated to the UE.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y in views of MOHANDAS et al., and SRINIVASAN et al. (US 2007/0264938).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 9, but does not particularly disclose wherein the one or more metrics are based on at least one of a packet success rate, a packet retry rate, or a packet failure rate.
However, Srinivasan teaches wherein the one or more metrics are based on at least one of a packet success rate, a packet retry rate, or a packet failure rate (p. [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Srinivisan, since such metrics allow determining the quality of the communication links.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI Y in views
of MOHANDAS et al., and GANESAN et al. (US 2023/0198855).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wei and Mohandas disclose the apparatus of claim 9, but does not particularly disclose wherein the metrics include metrics for at least one of: different traffic identifiers (TIDs); different access categories; different stream classification service identifiers; or flow identifiers.
However, Ganesan teaches wherein the metrics include metrics for at least one of: different traffic identifiers (TIDs); different access categories; different stream classification service identifiers; or flow identifiers (p. [0024], [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Wei and Mohandas with the teachings of Ganesan, since such a modification would allow configuring user traffic into different set of classes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights