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 Amendment
The amendments filed on July 1, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 10, 11, 21, 24, 27, 29-31, 33, and 34 have been amended. Claims 6, 9, 12-17, 19, 20, 26, 28, 32, and 35 are cancelled. New claims 36-39 have been added. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, 21-27, 29-31, 33, 34, and 36-39 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 1, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 1, 2026 have been fully considered.
The amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 33. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant have not provided any specific argument with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of independent claims.
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, 21-25, 27, 29-31, and 38 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));
transmitting the first data packet in an encapsulated data packet 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”. Paragraph 0045 discloses the packet is transmitted as an encapsulated packet).
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, the method further comprising: 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 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 (paragraph 0047 discloses associating port number based on the service requirement ).
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 25 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein the first queue supports the first latency classification, wherein a second queue supports the second latency classification, the method further comprising: 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 further teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet includes: producing the encapsulated data packet via encapsulation of the first data packet, the first encapsulated data packet including data field populated with a second latency 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 transmitting the first data packet to the destination network address includes: forwarding the encapsulated data packet including the first data packet to the destination network address in accordance with the second latency classification as indicated by the second latency value (paragraph 0031 discloses forwarding packet to the destination according to the egress quality of service);
retrieving the first data packet from the 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 latency 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 first 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 38, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan further teaches wherein a first queue of multiple queues is assigned the first latency classification and a second queue of the multiple queues is assigned the second latency classification, the method further comprising: prior to transmitting the first data packet in the encapsulated data packet, storing the encapsulated data packet storing the encapsulated in the second queue (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.”).
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).
Claims 11, 18, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramanan in view of Yu et al. (US PGPUB No. 20110299414), hereinafter, Yu.
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));
transmit the first data packet in an encapsulated data packet to the destination network address in accordance with the second latency classification, [[the first data packet in the encapsulated packet including a first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the encapsulated data packet including a second latency value indicating the second latency classification]] (paragraph 0031 discloses transmitting the packet as stated “After rewriting a packet, it can be transmitted at step 214”. 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 0045 discloses the packet is transmitted as an encapsulated packet).
Venkataramanan does not teach the first data packet in the encapsulated packet including a first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the encapsulated data packet including a second latency value indicating the second latency classification.
Yu teaches the first data packet in the encapsulated packet including a first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the encapsulated data packet including a second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0068 discloses encapsulating an IP packet including first set of QoS bits indicating a latency classification and the encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits having second latency classification ).
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 Yu about encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits. One would be motivated to do that to provide special treatment of the packet as per customized QoS policy of a segment of a network (see paragraph 0007 and 0013 of Yu).
Claim 18 is redirected towards a system performing the method of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 33, 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 the substitute to the first latency classification includes: producing the encapsulated data packet to include a first data field and a second data field, the first data field of the encapsulated data packet populated with the first data packet, the first data packet including the first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the second data field of the encapsulated data packet populated with a second latency value indicating the second latency classification.
Yu teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as the substitute to the first latency classification includes: producing the encapsulated data packet to include a first data field and a second data field, the first data field of the encapsulated data packet populated with the first data packet, the first data packet including the first latency value indicating the first latency classification, the second data field of the encapsulated data packet populated with a second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0068 discloses encapsulating an IP packet including first set of QoS bits indicating a latency classification and the encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits having second latency classification ).
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 Yu about encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits. One would be motivated to do that to provide special treatment of the packet as per customized QoS policy of a segment of a network (see paragraph 0007 and 0013 of Yu).
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 transmitting the first data packet in the encapsulated data packet 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 latency value (paragraph 0031 discloses packet is delivered as per the egress quality of service).
As to claim 36, 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 the substitute to the first latency classification includes: producing the encapsulated data packet to include a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the encapsulated data packet populated with the first data packet, the second portion of the encapsulated data packet populated with a second latency value indicating the second latency classification.
Yu teaches wherein assigning the second latency classification to the first data packet as the substitute to the first latency classification includes: producing the encapsulated data packet to include a first portion and a second portion, the first portion of the encapsulated data packet populated with the first data packet, the second portion of the encapsulated data packet populated with a second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0068 discloses encapsulating an IP packet including first set of QoS bits indicating a latency classification and the encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits having second latency classification ).
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 Yu about encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits. One would be motivated to do that to provide special treatment of the packet as per customized QoS policy of a segment of a network (see paragraph 0007 and 0013 of Yu).
As to claim 37, the rejection of claim 36 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 36 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 latency value in the second portion of the encapsulated data packet (paragraph 0031 discloses packet is delivered as per the egress quality of service).
As to claim 39, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Venkataramanan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Venkataramanan does not teach wherein the first data packet in the encapsulated data packet includes the first latency value indicating the first latency classification; and wherein the encapsulated data packet includes a second latency value indicating the second latency classification.
Yu teaches wherein the first data packet in the encapsulated data packet includes the first latency value indicating the first latency classification; and wherein the encapsulated data packet includes a second latency value indicating the second latency classification (paragraph 0068 discloses encapsulating an IP packet including first set of QoS bits indicating a latency classification and the encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits having second latency classification ).
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 Yu about encapsulated packet including a second set of QoS bits. One would be motivated to do that to provide special treatment of the packet as per customized QoS policy of a segment of a network (see paragraph 0007 and 0013 of Yu).
Conclusion
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 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.
July 30, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights