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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 12, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 23, 29, and 30 are amended Claims 6, 9, 12-16, 19, 20, and 28 are cancelled. New claims 32-35 are added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21-27, and 29-35 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 12, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated October 16, 2025 have been fully considered.
The amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 23. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been 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 § 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 33 and 34 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “producing an encapsulated data packet to include a second data field and a third data field, the second data field populated with the first data packet, the third data field populated with a second value indicating the second latency classification”. The clause “the second data field populated with the first data packet” is ambiguous. It is not clear how a data field can be populated with a data packet.
Claim 34 inherit the same deficiency.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21-27, , and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkataramanan et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20160337251 A1), hereinafter, Venkataramanan.
Regarding claim 1:
Venkataramanan teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving a first data packet including a first data payload, the first data packet transmitted for delivery to a destination network address (paragraph 0020 discloses receiving a packet as stated “As illustrated at step 202, a packet can be received and parsed to identify fields within the packet that are relevant to quality of service and routing”. Fig. 1 shows the packet is transmitted for deliver to destination 108);
determining a first latency classification assigned to the first data packet, the first data packet including a first data field populated with a first value indicating the first latency classification (paragraph 0021 discloses determining ingress quality of service (first latency classification). Also see paragraph 0012 stating “The method includes receiving a packet and determining an ingress quality of service context for the packet”. Paragraph 0018 discloses the packet includes value of QoS in the QoS field);
assigning a second latency classification to the first data packet as a substitute to the first latency classification (paragraph 0023 and 24 discloses assigning egress quality of service (second latency classification));
storing the first data packet in one of multiple queues depending on the second latency classification assigned to the first data packet (paragraph 0030 discloses storing the packet in one of the multiple queues depending on the egress quality of service as stated “ At step 210, the packet can be scheduled and queued based on the egress quality of service. Packets with different quality of service levels can be placed into egress queues with differing priorities.”); and
forwarding the first data packet for delivery to the destination network address in accordance with the second latency classification (paragraph 0031 discloses transmitting the packet as stated “After rewriting a packet, it can be transmitted at step 214”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet includes: further comprising: analyzing the first data payload in the first data packet; and selecting the second latency classification as the substitute to the first latency classification based on the analysis of the first data payload in first data packet (paragraph 0029 discloses assigning egress quality of service base on the packet size).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach further comprising: replacing a first tag value in the first data packet with a second tag value, the first tag value indicating the first latency classification, the second tag value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0038 discloses replacing ingress QoS label with egress QoS label. Also see paragraph 0044 stating “The QOS label metadata 426 therefore will reflect that the class of service and differentiated services code protocol values will be changed during the egress rewrite”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein the first latency classification supports a first latency of communicating the first data packet to the destination network address; wherein the second latency classification supports a second latency of communicating the first data packet to the destination network address; and wherein the second latency is less than the first latency (paragraph 0024 discloses assigning egress quality of service higher than the ingress quality of service).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach wherein the assigning of the second latency classification to the data packet includes: substituting first bit information in the first data packet with second bit information, the first bit information specifying the first latency classification, the second bit information specifying the second latency classification (paragraph 0038 discloses replacing ingress QoS label with egress QoS label. Also see paragraph 0044 stating “The QOS label metadata 426 therefore will reflect that the class of service and differentiated services code protocol values will be changed during the egress rewrite”. paragraph 0025 discloses QoS label comprises bit information).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches further comprising: analyzing first bit information in the first data packet, the first bit information specifying a port number associated with the delivery of the first data packet to the destination network address, the port number indicating a particular type of data in the first data payload, the particular type assigned the second latency classification (paragraph 0047 and discloses associating port number to corresponding egress quality of service. Also see paragraph 0038).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein the multiple queues include a first data delivery queue and a second data delivery queue, the first data delivery queue supporting the first latency classification, the second data delivery queue supporting the second latency classification: and wherein storing the first data packet in one of the multiple queues includes: storing the first data packet in the second data delivery queue instead of the first data delivery queue (paragraph 0030 discloses plurality of queues supporting different priorities and storing the packets accordingly).
Regarding claim 11:
Venkataramanan teaches:
receive a first data packet including a first data payload, the first data packet transmitted for delivery to a destination network address (paragraph 0020 discloses receiving a packet as stated “As illustrated at step 202, a packet can be received and parsed to identify fields within the packet that are relevant to quality of service and routing”. Fig. 1 shows the packet is transmitted for deliver to destination 108);
determine a first latency classification assigned to the first data packet (paragraph 0021 discloses determining ingress quality of service (first latency classification). Also see paragraph 0012 stating “The method includes receiving a packet and determining an ingress quality of service context for the packet”. Paragraph 0018 discloses the packet includes value of QoS in the QoS field);
assign a second latency classification to the first data packet as a substitute to the first latency classification (paragraph 0023 and 24 discloses assigning egress quality of service (second latency classification));
substitute a first latency value received in the first data packet with a second latency value, the first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0038 discloses replacing ingress QoS label with egress QoS label. Also see paragraph 0044 stating “The QOS label metadata 426 therefore will reflect that the class of service and differentiated services code protocol values will be changed during the egress rewrite”): and
forward the first data packet for delivery to the destination network address in accordance with the second latency classification (paragraph 0031 discloses transmitting the packet as stated “After rewriting a packet, it can be transmitted at step 214”).
Claim 17 is redirected towards a system performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is redirected towards a system performing the method of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is redirected towards a computer-readable storage hardware having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when carried out by computer processor hardware, cause the computer processor hardware to performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 22, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as a substitute to the first latency classification includes: analyzing bit information in the first data packet, the bit information specifying a first data type associated with the first data payload in the first data packet; and mapping the first data type to the second latency classification (paragraph 0023 discloses egress quality of service based on the data type as stated “This combination of metadata can be available for egress classification. Packets can also be classified based on the type of data and the source or destination addresses”. Paragraph 0025 discloses QoS label are generated bases on the type of the packet and DSCP bit information.).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 22 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches further comprising: assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as a substitute to the first latency classification in response to detecting that the second latency classification is different than the first latency classification (paragraph 0024 discloses assigning egress quality of service upon determining the ingress quality of service is poor ).
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as a substitute to the first latency classification includes: determining a port number assigned to the first data packet; and mapping the port number to the second latency classification (paragraph 0047 discloses associating port number to corresponding egress quality of service. Also see paragraph 0038).
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 24 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teach wherein the destination network address is assigned to a communication device; and wherein the port number indicates a corresponding port of an application executed on the communication device to which the first data packet is forwarded (paragrpah 0047 discloses associating port number based on the service requirement ).
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 24 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 24 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach further comprising: overwriting a first latency value in the first data packet to be a second latency value, the first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0038 discloses replacing ingress QoS label with egress QoS label. Also see paragraph 0044 stating “The QOS label metadata 426 therefore will reflect that the class of service and differentiated services code protocol values will be changed during the egress rewrite”).
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 26 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 26 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein the multiple queues include a first queue and a second queue, the first queue supporting the first latency classification, the second queue supporting the second latency classification; wherein storing the first data packet one of multiple queues includes: storing the first data packet in the second queue for subsequent distribution to the destination network address (paragraph 0030 discloses storing the packet in one of the multiple queues depending on the egress quality of service as stated “ At step 210, the packet can be scheduled and queued based on the egress quality of service. Packets with different quality of service levels can be placed into egress queues with differing priorities.”).
As to claim 29, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet includes: producing a first encapsulated data packet via encapsulation of the first data packet, the first encapsulated data packet including a second data field, the second data field populated with a second value indicating the second latency classification (paragraphs 0045 and 0049 disclose encapsulating packet with egress QoS label).
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 29 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches:
wherein forwarding the first data packet for delivery to the destination network address includes: forwarding the encapsulated first data packet to the destination network address in accordance with the second latency classification as indicated by the second value (paragraph 0031 discloses forwarding packet to the destination according to the egress quality of service);
retrieving the first data packet from the first encapsulated data packet; and communicating the retrieved first data packet to a communication device assigned the destination network address, the retrieved first data packet including the first value stored in the first data field (paragraph 0045 discloses stripping off the encapsulation and treating the packet as per original classification as the packet moves out of the MPLS network).
As to claim 31, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet includes: based on analyzing the first data payload associated with the first data packet, determining a data type associated with the data payload being transmitted by the first data packet; and mapping the determined data type to the second latency classification (paragraph 0023 discloses egress quality of service based on the data type as stated “This combination of metadata can be available for egress classification. Packets can also be classified based on the type of data and the source or destination addresses”.).
As to claim 32, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as the substitute to the first latency classification includes replacing the first value in the first data field with a second value, the second value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0031 discloses substituting QoS value according to the assigned egress quality of service).
As to claim 33, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as the substitute to the first latency classification includes: producing an encapsulated data packet to include a second data field and a third data field, the second data field populated with the first data packet, the third data field populated with a second value indicating the second latency classification (paragraphs 0045 and 0049 disclose encapsulating packet with egress QoS label).
As to claim 34, the rejection of claim 33 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 33 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein forwarding the first data packet for delivery to the destination network address includes: transmitting the encapsulated data packet over a communication path in accordance with the second latency classification as indicated by the second value in the third data field (paragraph 0031 discloses packet is delivered as per the egress quality of service).
As to claim 35, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet includes: using a second value stored in a second data field of the first data packet to determine the second latency classification; and replacing the first value in the first data field with a third value indicating the second latency classification (see at least paragraph 0031 discussing changing various fields of the packet according to the egress quality of services).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramanan in view of Chowdhury et al. (US PGPUB No. 20070036078), hereinafter, Chowdhury.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein the first latency classification supports a first latency of communicating the first data packet to the destination network address; wherein the second latency classification supports a second latency of communicating the first data packet to the destination network address; and [[wherein the second latency is greater than the first latency]] (paragraph 0003 discloses QoS classifications corresponds to delay classifications of packets. see paragraph 0018 and 0019 discussing the ingress QoS and egress QoS for differential treatment of packet) .
Venkataramanan does not teach wherein the second latency is greater than the first latency.
Chowdhury teaches wherein the second latency is greater than the first latency (paragraphs 0028 and 0032 disclose downgrading QoS. Paragraph 0003 discloses QoS corresponds to level of latency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataramanan to incorporate the teaching of Chowdhury about downgrading QoS. One would be motivated to do that to improve the network resource utilization by downgrading QoS of a IP flow with more that required QoS level (see paragraph 0004 of Chowdhury).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
March 28, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444