DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 11/17/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1a. Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A, Applicant argues that “Nadas has a first congestion control algorithm specifically for the Internet, and only a second algorithm for the RAN. As such, Nadas fails to teach applying a first congestion control algorithm to a first RAN and a second congestion control algorithm to a second RAN of a wireless network,” as claimed in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15”. (Remarks, pages 6-7).
In response to A, The Examiner disagrees because Nadas discloses in paragraphs [0050]; [0070]; congestion control algorithm being used to control the limits of rate at which data packets are sent to a mobile terminal of a user equipment using transport resources slices of a radio access network, where a congestion control algorithm associated with first wireless slice is the first congestion control algorithm, where another congestion control algorithm associated with second wireless slice is the second congestion control algorithm. As can be seen, in [0050] it is disclosed that radio access network are sliced ( or sub-divided) where data packet flows are dynamically allocation to such resource slices. The association of the RAN with the radio access network is also disclosed in [0099] that says that a RAN is associated with a radio access network. In the case, the radio access network is sliced first slice, and a second slice can be considered. For example the first slice associate with the first RAN ; and the second slice is associated with the second RAN. In [0094] it says that transport characteristic (radio access network) applies resource sharing algorithm. The algorithm is broadly interpreted where each radio access network triggers an algorithm. For the first RAN a first algorithm will be generated based on the first radio access slice and a second algorithm will be generated for the second.
B, Applicant argues that “Kanakaraj and Watts fails to cure this deficiency,” Remarks page 7.
In response to B, The Examiner has considered the arguments but Kanakaraj or Watts does not have to cure the deficiencies of the Fard and Nadas. As it was stated in section A above; the combination of Fard and Nadas teaches the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3.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.
3a. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARD et al. (hereinafter “FARD”) (WO 2023278414 A1) and Nadas et al. (hereinafter “Nadas”) (US 2019/0334825 A1).
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 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.
Nadas discloses apply a first congestion control algorithm to the first wireless network slice of the first RAN of the wireless network (congestion control algorithm being used to control the limits of rate at which data packets are sent to a mobile terminal of a user equipment using transport resources slices of a radio access network, the congestion control algorithm associated with first wireless slice is the first congestion control algorithm In [0050] it is disclosed that radio access network are sliced ( or sub-divided) where data packet flows are dynamically allocation to such resource slices. I [0099] it says that a RAN is associated with a radio access network. In the case, the radio access network is sliced. For example the first slice associate with the first RAN ; and the second slice is associated with the second RAN. In [0094] it says that transport characteristic (radio access network) applies resource sharing algorithm. The algorithm is broadly interpreted where each radio access network triggers an algorithm. For the first RAN a first algorithm will be generated based on the first radio access slice and a second algorithm will be generated for the second.
, Nadas, [0050]; [0070]; [0071])); and apply a second congestion control algorithm to the second wireless network slice of the second RAN of the wireless network (congestion control algorithm being used to control the limits of rate at which data packets are sent to a mobile terminal of a user equipment using transport resources slices of a radio access network, the congestion control algorithm associated with second wireless slice is the second congestion control algorithm In [0050] it is disclosed that radio access network are sliced ( or sub-divided) where data packet flows are dynamically allocation to such resource slices. I [0099] it says that a RAN is associated with a radio access network. In the case, the radio access network is sliced. For example the first slice associate with the first RAN ; and the second slice is associated with the second RAN. In [0094] it says that transport characteristic (radio access network) applies resource sharing algorithm. The algorithm is broadly interpreted where each radio access network triggers an algorithm. For the first RAN a first algorithm will be generated based on the first radio access slice and a second algorithm will be generated for the second, Nadas, [0050]; [0070];[0071])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nadas’s teachings with FARD’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to control the congestion in a wireless network efficiently by using congestion control algorithms that control packets sent to a mobile device based on the rate limit received packets.
Regarding claim 2, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 1.
FARD does not disclose wherein the first RAN is different from the second RAN.
Nadas discloses wherein the first RAN is different from the second RAN (two different data packet transport domains that two different radio access network (RAN) , Nadas, [0050])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nadas’s teachings with FARD’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to process different type of data packets efficiently by using different RANs to process data packets more efficiently by processing them using different RANs for processing them independently.
Regarding claim 3, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the first RAN and the second RAN are new radio access networks (the radio access network (RAN) are disclosed being 5G , FARD, [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.
Nadas discloses wherein the first congestion control algorithm is different from the second congestion control algorithm (two independent congestion control algorithms are disclosed controlling different congestions, Nadas, [0083])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nadas’s teachings with FARD’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to control different congestions efficiently by using different congestion control algorithms that control the congestions independently.
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 and Nadas disclose 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 , FARD, [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.
3b. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARD, Nadas, and further in view of Kanakaraj et al. (hereinafter “Kanakaraj”) (US 2023/0100136 A1).
Regarding claim 4, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 1.
FARD in view of Nadas do 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 type of data, Kanakaraj, [0030]; in[0030] different type of data is disclosed).
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 teachings in view of Nadas’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to indicate efficiently congestion in a wireless communication network by using key performance indicators that estimate the congestion of the wireless communication network.
Regarding claim 5, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 1.
FARD in view of Nadas do 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]; in[0030] different type of data is disclosed).
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 teachings in view of Nadas’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to indicate efficiently 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.
3c. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARD, Nadas, and further in view of Watts et al. (hereinafter “Watts”) (US 2024/0224114 A1).
Regarding claim 7, FARD and Nadas disclose the system of claim 6.
FARD in view of Nadas do 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 mechanism , 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 Kanakaraj’s teachings with FARD’s teachings in view of Nadas’s teachings. 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 mechanism 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.
Conclusion
4. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455