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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/14/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kakadia et al. (US 2016/0057649 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kakadia discloses a method, comprising: receiving first information indicating a requested traffic class for an upstream traffic flow (Fig. 4, paragraph 0036-0037 discloses receiving performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class (block 410). For example, management device 235 may receive performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class); determining one or more target performance characteristics associated with from the requested traffic class ((Fig. 4, paragraph 0036-0040 discloses process 400 may include determining an overall delay and a RAN delay, associated with the traffic flow, based on the performance information (block 420). For example, management device 235 may determine an overall delay and a RAN delay, associated with the traffic flow, based on the performance information. In some implementations, management device 235 may determine the overall delay and the RAN delay after management device 235 receives the performance information for the traffic flow. Additionally, or alternatively, management device 235 may determine the overall delay and the RAN delay when management device 235 receives an indication that management device 235 is to determine the overall delay and the RAN delay. One or more target performance characteristics reads on overall delay or RAN delay, target packet delay etc. As an example of One or more target performance characteristics, paragraph 0001 also states that [0001] The goal of quality of service (QoS) is to assure treatment for traffic travelling via a network such that one or more performance metrics (e.g., an amount of latency, an error rate, an amount of bandwidth, an amount of throughput, an amount of jitter, etc.) is as close as possible to satisfying a target performance metric); and scheduling, in response to determining the one or more target performance characteristics from the requested traffic class, network resources for the upstream traffic flow based on the one or more target performance characteristics (Paragraphs 0011-0014 discloses identify, based on a RAN delay associated with traffic flow, a QoS sub-class to which the traffic flow is to be assigned, and cause packets, associated with the traffic flow, to be marked for treatment in accordance with the QoS sub-class. As such, if the traffic flow is experiencing bad RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay greater than a threshold, due to signal interference, noise, or the like), then the traffic flow may be placed in a higher priority QoS sub-class. This may allow additional QoS resources to be provided to the traffic flow. Similarly, if a traffic flow assigned to the particular QoS class has good RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay less than a threshold), then the traffic flow may be placed in a lower priority QoS sub-class. This may allow QoS resources, unneeded by the traffic flow, to be made available to other traffic flows (e.g., traffic flows with bad RAN conditions. Also see table).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 comprises substantially similar limitations as claimed above in claim 1, claimed as a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 191, processor 1401 and memory 1403), cause one or more components of the system to perform operations comprising to perform the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises substantially similar limitations as claimed above in claim 1, claimed as one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause performance of operations comprising (Paragraphs 0191-0192 disclose Fig. 191, processor 1401 and memory 1403), cause one or more components of the system to perform operations comprising to perform the steps of claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Kakadia discloses receiving a performance report indicating an observed performance of the upstream traffic flow (Fig. 4 discloses receiving performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class (block 410). For example, management device 235 may receive performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class); comparing the observed performance of the upstream traffic flow to the one or more target performance characteristic (Paragraphs 0040-0041 disclose receiving performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class (block 410). For example, management device 235 may receive performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class. process 400 may include determining a target delay associated with the QoS class (block 430). For example, management device 235 may determine a target delay associated with the QoS class. In some implementations, management device 235 may determine the target delay after management device 235 determines the overall delay and the RAN delay associated with the traffic flow. Paragraphs 0046-0050 disclose management device 235 may identify the QoS sub-class after management device 235 determines the overall delay and/or the RAN delay associated with the traffic flow. Additionally, or alternatively, management device 235 may identify the QoS sub-class after management device 235 compares the target delay, the RAN delay, and/or the overall delay)
and scheduling a subsequent traffic flow based on one or more differences between the observed performance of the upstream traffic flow and the one or more target performance characteristics (Paragraphs 0046-0052, management device 235 may provide, as inputs to the QoS sub-class assignment algorithm, the overall delay, the RAN delay, and/or the target delay, and may receive, as an output, information that identifies a QoS sub-class to which the traffic flow is to be assigned (scheduling another traffic flow based on comparison). In this way management device 235, may determine a RAN delay, associated with a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class and may identify a QoS sub-class, associated with the QoS class, to which the traffic flow is to be assigned. This may allow QoS resources to be shifted from traffic flows experiencing good RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay less than a threshold) to traffic flows experiencing bad RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay greater than a threshold)).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Kakadia discloses wherein the performance report comprises one or more of a packet error loss rate, minimum frame delay, maximum frame delay, mean frame delay, and observed maximum burst size associated with the upstream traffic flow (Parag. 0037 discloses the performance information may include information associated with an amount of delay (e.g., latency), an error rate, an amount of bandwidth, an amount of throughput, an amount of jitter, or the like. The device may determine an overall packet delay, delay associated with traffic flow, target packet dealy etc.).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Kakadia discloses measuring an observed performance of the upstream traffic flow (Fig. 4 discloses receiving performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class (block 410). For example, management device 235 may receive performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class); comparing the observed performance of the upstream traffic flow to the one or more target performance characteristics (Paragraphs 0040-0041 disclose receiving performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class (block 410). For example, management device 235 may receive performance information for a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class. process 400 may include determining a target delay associated with the QoS class (block 430). For example, management device 235 may determine a target delay associated with the QoS class. In some implementations, management device 235 may determine the target delay after management device 235 determines the overall delay and the RAN delay associated with the traffic flow. Paragraphs 0046-0050 disclose management device 235 may identify the QoS sub-class after management device 235 determines the overall delay and/or the RAN delay associated with the traffic flow. Additionally, or alternatively, management device 235 may identify the QoS sub-class after management device 235 compares the target delay, the RAN delay, and/or the overall delay)
and scheduling a subsequent traffic flow based on one or more differences between the observed performance of the upstream traffic flow and the one or more target performance characteristics (Paragraphs 0046-0052, management device 235 may provide, as inputs to the QoS sub-class assignment algorithm, the overall delay, the RAN delay, and/or the target delay, and may receive, as an output, information that identifies a QoS sub-class to which the traffic flow is to be assigned (scheduling another traffic flow based on comparison). In this way management device 235, may determine a RAN delay, associated with a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class and may identify a QoS sub-class, associated with the QoS class, to which the traffic flow is to be assigned. This may allow QoS resources to be shifted from traffic flows experiencing good RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay less than a threshold) to traffic flows experiencing bad RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay greater than a threshold)).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Kakadia discloses determining alternative performance characteristics of the upstream traffic flow; transmitting first information indicating an alternative traffic class associated with the alternative performance characteristics; and scheduling the upstream traffic flow based on the alternative performance characteristics (Paragraphs 0046-0052, management device 235 may provide, as inputs to the QoS sub-class assignment algorithm, the overall delay, the RAN delay, and/or the target delay, and may receive, as an output, information that identifies a QoS sub-class to which the traffic flow is to be assigned (scheduling another traffic flow based on comparison). In this way management device 235, may determine a RAN delay, associated with a traffic flow assigned to a QoS class and may identify a QoS sub-class, associated with the QoS class, to which the traffic flow is to be assigned. This may allow QoS resources to be shifted from traffic flows experiencing good RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay less than a threshold) to traffic flows experiencing bad RAN conditions (e.g., an amount of RAN delay greater than a threshold. Paragraph 0053 disclose management device 235 may cause the packets to be marked based on providing information associated with the identified QoS sub-class. For example, management device 235 may identify a QoS sub-class to which the traffic flow is to be assigned, and may provide an indication that the traffic flow is to be assigned to the QoS sub-class. In some implementations, management device 235 may provide the indication to base station 210. Here, base station 210 may receive the indication, and may mark packets, associated with the traffic flow accordingly (e.g., such that the packets are treated in accordance with the QoS sub-class).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakadia et al. (US 2016/0057649 A1) in view of Casey (US 2009/0163223 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Kakadia does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more target performance characteristics comprise parameters associated with one or more of jitter, delay, loss tolerance, and retry rate.
In analogous art, Casey discloses wherein the one or more target performance characteristics comprise parameters associated with one or more of jitter, delay, loss tolerance, and retry rate (Paragraph 0059 discloses in step 403 traffic connections within each cell 302, 304, 306 are differentiated according to traffic classes based delay sensitivity of the connection or based on delay and jitter sensitivity of the connection. According to the invention traffic connections are differentiated to at least two traffic classes. All traffic, e.g. packet and service flows, are carried on a connection, and the QoS depends on traffic class of the connection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Casey to the system of Kakadia to provide a load balancing scheme that takes into consideration a framework to differentiate between different priority connections. The idea is to make higher priority connections (e.g. VoIP) more robust against unnecessary handovers, resulting from traffic and channel fluctuation, than lower priority connections. This leads to better QoS without compromising the more efficient system wide resource utilization that load balancing brings in (Casey, parag. 0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vemuri et al. (US 2024/0039854 A1) discloses a device described herein may maintain information associating sets of traffic attributes with respective sets of Quality of Service (“QoS”) parameters, and may receive a request to establish a traffic flow. The request may indicate one or more traffic attributes associated with the requested traffic flow. The device may compare the one or more traffic attributes, included in the request, to the information associating the sets of traffic attributes with the respective sets of QoS parameters, identify a particular set of QoS parameters with which the traffic flow is associated, establish a communication session with a network based on the particular set of QoS parameters, communicate traffic, associated with the traffic flow, with the network via the established communication session. The device may include an application programming interface (“API”) via which an application associated with the traffic flow may specify the traffic attributes in the request.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMANI OHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5420. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UN C CHO can be reached at 5712727919. 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.
/ROMANI OHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413