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 .
Examiner has considered Amendment after Non-Final mailed 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yavuz et al. US 20230121880.
Regarding claim 1, A computer-implemented method for transmission over a heterogeneous network (the RAN, Figure 1, element 107, and the Core Network, element 111, provide a system that allows information to flow between a UE in the cellular or private network and other networks, para. 0009), comprising: determining a path through a first network, including collecting quality of service (QoS) parameters for network devices in the path; configuring the QoS parameters of the network devices to provide a predetermined QoS assurance across the path; and transmitting a network flow from a network slice of a second network through the first network, along the path.
Regarding claim 8, The method of claim 1, wherein determining the path includes gathering a class of service from at least one layer 2 switch (provided performance metrics can include the achieved Packet Error Rate (PER) (MAC and RLC layer) for each QoS flow; and PRB resource utilization for each QoS flow, UE-provided performance metrics can include achieved PER (MAC, RLC and IP layer) for each QoS flow; and channel quality (SNR), the information can be useful to help determine if the service level objectives (SLO) are being met, element 208).
Regarding claim 9, The method of claim 1, wherein the second network is a radio access network that receives traffic from a wireless device and the second network is a local area network (LAN) that includes a target device for the network flow (the RAN, Figure 1, element 107, and the Core Network, element 111, provide a system that allows information to flow between a UE in the cellular or private network and other networks, para. 0009).
Regarding claim 10, The method of claim 1, wherein the network slice of the second network has an associated QoS guarantee that corresponds to the predetermined QoS assurance across the path (a microslice profile can be defined to meet the purpose of outlining a communication path and QoS requirements for the communication path, it defines the parameters of data flows to ensure that certain Quality of Service (QoS) requirements and Service Level Objectives (SLOs) are met, and can also define the path of data flows, microslice profiles can be utilized to quickly and efficiently set up a microslice instance, which is a communication link with a wireless UE, that meets service requirements for the UE, para. 0073).
Regarding claim 11, A system for transmission over a heterogeneous network (the RAN, Figure 1, element 107, and the Core Network, element 111, provide a system that allows information to flow between a UE in the cellular or private network and other networks, para. 0009), comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory that stores a computer program which, when executed by the hardware processor (load control apparatus for managing and controlling network load in a wireless communication network is disclosed that includes a microslice orchestration module for creating the microslice instances that define data paths for the UEs, para. 0028, Figure 16, element 1560), causes the hardware processor to:
determine a path through a first network, including collecting quality of service (QoS) parameters for network devices in the path; configure the QoS parameters of the network devices to provide a predetermined QoS assurance across the path (a microslice profile can be defined to meet the purpose of outlining a communication path and QoS requirements for the communication path, it defines the parameters of data flows to ensure that certain Quality of Service (QoS) requirements and Service Level Objectives (SLOs) are met, and can also define the path of data flows, microslice profiles can be utilized to quickly and efficiently set up a microslice instance, which is a communication link with a wireless UE, that meets service requirements for the UE, allow the network to utilize its resources more efficiently, simplify network administration, and enhance services provided by the network, para. 0073); and transmit a network flow from a network slice of a second network through the first network, along the path (a microslice instance provides a path for data flow to and from a device, a device may be a UE or other device such as an Access Point (AP), a router, or other component in the communication network, the microslice's data flow will travel end-to-end (i.e., from the UE to the edge of the external PDN), the data flow may travel through all or parts of the RAN, Core Network, and service platforms, para. 0058).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under the rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yavuz et al. US 20220255798 in view of Hoole et al. US 20210119941.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1, Yavuz discloses wherein the QoS parameters include differentiated services code point (DSCP) values (the QoS parameters of each the microslices can be extended to these LANs, WANs, and firewalls through standard mechanisms such as QoS markings and DiffServ differentiated services code point, para. 0065). Yavuz does not disclose for queues of the network devices. Hoole discloses a classifier apparatus sorts the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues, para. 0143. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz to include Hoole’s DSCP queuing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to support certain bandwidth, quality, and latency requirements, para. 0006.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yavuz et al. US 20220255798 in view of Hoole et al. US 20210119941 in view of Lee et al. US 20110310738 in view of Marupaduga et al. US 11064395.
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 2, Yavuz and Hoole do not disclose wherein configuring the QoS parameters includes installing a rewrite function at one or more of the network devices. Lee discloses functional components, Figure 3, element 300, in network device including components to perform traffic policing and buffering including marker component, element 330, queue management and scheduling component, element 350, and queues, element 360. Lee discloses the marker component to operate to update or modify packet header data to indicate a particular class to which a packet belongs,when using the DiffSery protocol, marker component may write/rewrite the Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) field of a packet's header to indicate to which class this packet belongs, para. 0032. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz microslice configuration and Hoole’s DSCP queuing with Lee’s DSCP marking. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to minimize packet delay and packet loss in a congested network, para. 0010.
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 3, Yavuz, Hoole and Lee disclose queues of network devices and rewrite function modifies DSCP values of incoming packets but do not explicitly disclose responsive to mismatch of DSCP markings. Marupaduga discloses identifying a mismatch between a DSCP value of the uplink data packets and a QCI of the RAN or bearer and the mismatch is corrected at the cell site router, and the data packets are therefore prioritized over other data packets that are appropriately-assigned lower-priority DSCP values, Figure 4. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz, Hoole and Lee to include Marupaduga’s DSCP mismatch correction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so since a mismatch between two different QoS indicators (e.g. DSCP and QCI) can cause dropped packets, or reduced quality of service for end-user wireless devices attached to such heterogeneous wireless networks, column 1, lines 40-45.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yavuz et al. US 20220255798 in view of Gupta et al. US 20180176141.
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1, Yavuz does not disclose wherein configuring the QoS parameters includes reserving ports responsive to network traffic in the first network. Gupta discloses implementing DSCP marking using the Linux utilities by requiring reserving a port, interface, or IP address, just to facilitate the DSCP marking, para. 0069. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz microslice configuration with Gupta’s DSCP marking. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to factor priority into routing, resource allocation, and overload abatement decisions, para. 0002.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yavuz et al. US 20220255798 in view of Gupta et al. US 20180176141 in view of Stephenson et al. US 20090109847.
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 5, Yavuz and Gupta do not disclose wherein reserving ports responsive to network traffic includes reserving ports according to a two-rate three-color approach. Stephenson discloses a policer which measures packet rates in bytes (or packets) per second and outputs both a policing action and a policing color, policers make local measurements of traffic rates and then locally enforce their configured traffic limits typically by re-marking DSCP, each policer, in one implementation, is a token bucket policer capable of providing a color-aware, single-rate or dual-rate, three-color marker, para. 0030. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz microslice configuration and Gupta’s DSCP marking with Stephenson’s marking. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so since policers are a commonly used capability in network infrastructures to measure the flow of frames or packets from a source to a destination and to subsequently take remedial action if the measurements are above a pre-determined threshold such as include dropping packets, re-marking to a different priority, para. 0002.
Claim 16, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Yavuz et al. US 20220255798 in view of Balakrishnan et al. US 20180375784.
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1, Yavuz does not disclose wherein configuring the QoS parameters includes setting a queue draining policy to be round-robin for the network devices. Balakrishnan discloses when utilizing multiple account queues, a scheduling algorithm determines the order in which account queues are drained, the request scheduling and processing system can use any number of scheduling queuing fairness algorithms, including by way of nonlimiting example FairQueue, SmartQueue and Deficit Round Robin, para. 0022. Before the filing of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Yavuz microslice configuration with Balakrishnan’s drain queuing using a round robin algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to provide fairness across multiple resources, para. 0022.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Yavuz is not a valid prior art due to the instant application’s filing claiming the benefit of a provisional application filed 8/19/2022. However, the cited prior art Yavuz is a continuation in part of a previous application that has a filing date 3/4/ 2022 and that application enables the subject matter relied upon by Examiner in the rejection. Therefore, the cited prior art is valid.
Regarding amended limitations to claims 4 and 14, Examiner submits reference Marupaduga herewith.
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 MELANIE JAGANNATHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571-270-1096. 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.
/MELANIE JAGANNATHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468