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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission, filed on July 13, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
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, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard e al. hereinafter “Fard” (WO 2023278414) in view of Wang et al. hereinafter “Wang” (US 2013/0343187).
Regarding claim 1, Fard discloses a system configured for congestion control in a wireless network, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions (instructions from a non-transitory computer media are executed by a processing system, Fard [0187], [0188]) to:
communicate first data packet types between a single application and user equipment (UE) using a first wireless network slice of a first radio access network (RAN) of the wireless network (packets are provided to a UE by one application using a session that establishes a link between the application and the user equipment where the packets are associated with QoS and the packet is provided to a UE by using a slice network having an identification selected by a selector where the slice provide different RAN access network ( packets having the same QoS are the same type and the description is for one or more applications, for the purpose of the examination the examiner is considering only one application) the Examiner is taken the position each QoS corresponds to as type packets associated with for example a first QoS has first data packets associate with , in addition, each RAN is associated with a wireless network slice for example a given RAN is considered as a first RAN and the corresponding wireless network slice is the first wireless network slice, Fard [0125], [0080], [207]);
communicate second data packet types between the single application and the UE using a second wireless network slice of a second RAN of the wireless network (packets are provided to a UE by one application using a session that establishes a link between the application and the user equipment where the packets are associated with QoS and the packet is provided to a UE by using a slice network having an identification selected by a selector where the slice provide different RAN access network( packets having the same QoS are the same type and the description is for one or more applications, for the purpose of the examination the examiner is considering only one application) the Examiner is taken the position each QoS corresponds to type packets associated with for example a second QoS has another data packets associate with , in addition, each RAN is associated with a wireless network slice for example another RAN is considered as a second RAN and the corresponding wireless network slice is the second wireless network slice, Fard [0125], [0080], [207]);
receive a first notification of wireless network congestion for the first wireless network slice of the first RAN of the wireless network ( congestion notification based on an overload message that is associated with PDU session of a wireless device and that comprises an access type and where UE is assigned to a dedicated network slice, the notification associated with first wireless slice is the first notification, Fard [0318]);
receive a second notification of wireless network congestion for the second wireless network slice of the second RAN of the wireless network( congestion notification based on an overload message that is associated with PDU session of a wireless device and that comprises an access type and where UE is assigned to a dedicated network slice, the notification associated with second wireless slice is the second notification, Fard [0318]).
Fard does not explicitly disclose apply a first congestion control algorithm to the first wireless network slice of the first RAN of the wireless network; and apply a second congestion control algorithm to the second wireless network slice of the second RAN of the wireless network. In other words, Fard does not explicitly disclose applying different congestion-control algorithms to the first Radio Access Network (RAN) and the second RAN of the wireless network.
Wang teaches a system and method for optimizing network traffic across heterogeneous wireless paths (such as a network combining a first cellular RAN like LTE/3G and a second non-cellular RAN like WiFi) by tailoring congestion control behaviors to specific link types. Wang teaches that different wireless link types suffer from radically different loss and latency characteristics. To solve this, Wang isolates path characteristics by selecting and applying a tailored congestion-control mechanism specific to the technical constraints and behaviors of each respective network path/link. For instance, Wang’s tailored congestion-control mechanism can dynamically switch or concurrently execute a loss-based TCP algorithm (like Reno/Cubic) on one path and a delay-based or hybrid algorithm (like Vegas or Compound TCP) on another. See Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0034] - [0036], [0044], [0058] - [0059] and [0079].
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 multi-RAN wireless network of Fard by incorporating the differentiated, multi-path congestion-control algorithms as taught by Wang. One would be motivated to do so to accurately track the unique capabilities of each RAN in the multi-RAN wireless network of Fard, thereby preventing throughput collapse and avoiding network congestion (see paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the first RAN is different from the second RAN, see Abstract and Fig. 1. Same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 3, Fard disclosed the system of claim 2, wherein the first RAN and the second RAN are new radio access networks (the radio access network (RAN) is disclosed as being 5G, ([0053])).
Regarding claim 6, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 1.
FARD does not disclose wherein the first congestion control algorithm is different from the second congestion control algorithm.
Wang discloses wherein the first congestion control algorithm is different from the second congestion control algorithm ([0044]). Same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, Fard discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium having instructions embodied thereon, the instructions being executable by one or more processors (instructions from a non-transitory computer media are executed by a processing system, [0187]-[0188]). In addition, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1; thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 3; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 6; thus, the same rationale applies.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard in view of Wang and further in view of Kanakaraj et al. hereinafter “Kanakaraj” (US 2023/0100136).
Regarding claim 4, Fard in view of Wang does not disclose wherein the first notification of wireless network congestion indicates a congestion control threshold has been satisfied for the first data packet types.
Kanakaraj discloses wherein the first notification of wireless network congestion indicates a congestion control threshold has been satisfied for the first data packet types (notification of the congestion of a wireless communication network using a threshold that is indicated using key performance indicators for estimating the congestion for different types of data, Kanakaraj, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanakaraj’s teachings with Fard’s in view of Wang’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently indicate congestion in a wireless communication network by using key performance indicators that estimate the congestion of the wireless communication network.
Regarding claim 5, Fard in view of Wang does not disclose wherein the second notification of wireless network congestion indicates a congestion control threshold has been satisfied for the second data packet types.
Kanakaraj discloses wherein the second notification of wireless network congestion indicates a congestion control threshold has been satisfied for the second data packet types (notification of the congestion of a wireless communication network using a threshold that is indicated using key performance indicators for estimating the congestion for different type of data, Kanakaraj, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kanakaraj’s teachings into the teachings of Fard and Wang. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently indicate congestion in a wireless communication network by using key performance indicators that estimate the congestion of the wireless communication network.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5; thus, the same rationale applies.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fard in view of Wang and further in view of Watts et al. hereinafter “Watts” (US 2024/0224114).
Regarding claim 7, Fard in view of Wang does not disclose wherein the first wireless network slice for the first RAN and the second wireless network slice are configured in a wireless network using Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) configuration profiles.
Watts discloses wherein the first wireless network slice for the first RAN and the second wireless network slice are configured in a wireless network using Low Latency Low Loss Scalable Throughput (L4S) configuration profiles ( a subnetwork slice in a wireless network being configure based on a time-base control mechanism with low latency low loss and low scalable throughput, Watts, claim 15, [0039];[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Watts’ teachings into the teachings of Fard and Wang. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to control efficiently congestion in a wireless communication network by using time-base control mechanism -with low latency, low loss, and low scalable throughput- that controls the congestion of the wireless communication network efficiently.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7; thus, the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 7; thus’ the same rationale applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmanuel L Moise whose telephone number is (571)272-3865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached on 571 272-1667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
