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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Gunasekara's classes of service are not the claimed origination types. The Office Action identifies Gunasekara's class-of-service designations, including COS #2 and COS #4, as the claimed first and second "origination types." Office Action at 3-4. Gunasekara, however, expressly uses class of service to describe a subscriber's service level and the data rate assigned to that subscriber. For example, Gunasekara describes service levels supporting 10, 20, 30, or 40 megabits per second for respective subscribers. See Gunasekara [0018], [0075]-[0081]. A COS #2 client and a COS #4 client therefore differ in subscribed service rate, not in where their data originates. The present Specification uses "origination type" in a materially different manner. It identifies source categories such as backhaul data, client data, and ethernet-bridged data. See Specification [0002], [0013], [0059]-[0061]. Under that taxonomy, traffic associated with both a COS #2 subscriber and a COS #4 subscriber is client data. Re-labeling two subscriber service tiers as two origination types omits the source-based distinction required by claim 1” (see remarks pg. 10).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim broadly recites “origination type”. Applicant states the origination type “identifies source categories such as backhaul data, client data, and ethernet-bridged data. See Specification [0002], [0013], [0059]-[0061]” which are very specific examples. These features upon which applicant relies (i.e., source categories such as backhaul data, client data, and ethernet-bridged data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets class of service as the claimed “origination type”. This interpretation is reasonable as Gunasekara discloses each client subscribes to a class of service and each message being forwarded to the client meets the subscribed class of service (see specification paragraph [0018] “a class of service to which each respective client subscribes” and paragraphs [0059]; [0111] “the root access point 105-R can receive a message from network 190. The message can include a unique identifier value such as a network address indicating that the message is to be delivered to computer device 150-1”); thus, the messages/service being originated are of a particular class. In view of above, class of service 2 and class of service 4 reads on a first origination type and a second origination type. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “The cited passages do not disclose the second operation. They do not show the given MAP setting aside portions of its allocated MAP-level ADR for data based on source or origin. See e.g., Specification [0059]-[0062]. The Office Action collapses the controller's initial link-bandwidth calculation and the MAP's subsequent origin-based apportionment into one operation, contrary to the language of claim 1” (see remarks pg. 11).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Gunasekara clearly discloses the given MAP being allocated MAP-level ADR for link 228-2 (see paragraph [0080] “That is, the combination of bandwidth requirements for computer devices 250-3, 250-4, 250-5, and 250-6 is 120 megabits per second. To facilitate communications to mesh access point 205-2, the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”). Further, based on the class of service (i.e., origination type of data), MAP 205-2 separates the ADR allocated from link 228-2 into its corresponding link (such as 238-3, 238-4, 238-5, 238-6) for proper forwarding of messages (see paragraphs [0073], [0059]; [0080]). Accordingly, as Gunasekara discloses the argued limitation of “apportioning, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP”, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “The cited art does not designate first and second portions of a MAP ADR by data origin. Gunasekara's individual subscriber rates do not establish first and second portions of a given MAP's ADR designated for first and second origination types. At most, Gunasekara allocates capacity to support different client service entitlements. The rejection does not identify a MAP-level budget for backhaul data, a separate MAP-level budget for client data, or any other division of the MAP ADR according to the source of traffic. The designation limitations are therefore not taught or suggested by Gunasekara” (see remarks pg. 11).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner is not interpreting the claimed designation to be based on subscriber rate, but rather based on the service, in particular class of service (COS), flowing through. The examiner interprets class of service as the claimed origination type. This interpretation is reasonable as Gunasekara discloses each client subscribes to a class of service and each message being forwarded to the client meets the subscribed class of service (see specification paragraph [0018] “a class of service to which each respective client subscribes” and paragraphs [0059]; [0111] “the root access point 105-R can receive a message from network 190. The message can include a unique identifier value such as a network address indicating that the message is to be delivered to computer device 150-1”); thus, the messages/service being originated are of a particular class. Accordingly, a first portion of the ADR of link 228-2 for MAP 205-2 is designated for a class of service 2 for device 250-4 and a second portion is designated for a class of service 4 for device 250-5. Accordingly, as Gunasekara discloses the argued limitation of “wherein a first portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a first origination type and a second portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a second origination type”, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Gong does not cure the missing limitations or disclose the claimed predefined MAP fraction. The Office Action acknowledges that Gunasekara does not expressly disclose the claimed "fraction" and relies on Gong [0012]. Office Action at 4. Gong states that, because neighboring MAPs contend for bandwidth, each MAP receives a fraction of available bandwidth. That statement describes an incidental share produced by contention; it does not describe a controller assigning, for each MAP, a predefined fraction of the RAP's total ADR” (see remarks pg. 11).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Gong was simply brought in to teach the term of fraction. The examiner relied on the primary reference of Gunasekara to disclose the limitation of allocating, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract), but Gunasekara does not disclose the portion is a fraction. However, Gong disclose each MAP is allocated a fraction of available bandwidth (which also affects the data rate available for each MAP). Accordingly, portion and fraction are interchangeably used when dealing with distributions of bandwidth/data rate to a plurality of MAPs, and it would have been obvious to substitute the term portion of Gunasekara with fraction of Gong. Therefore, as the combination of Gunasekara and Gong teaches the argued limitation of “MAPs at a one-hop level and a second set of the MAPs at a two-hop level, the method comprising: allocating, by a controller, available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPS, wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined fraction of a total ADR of the RAP”, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Gong's controller computes an average per-client data rate using the number of clients and client hop counts, and may divide that per-client rate between upstream and downstream directions. See Gong [0012]-[0013], [0033]-[0040]. A per-client rate or an upstream/downstream directional split is not the claimed MAP-specific ADR allocation followed by source-based MAP apportionment. Gong likewise does not disclose apportioning a given MAP's ADR among backhaul, ethernet-bridged, client, or other origination types. Thus, even if Gong were combined with Gunasekara, the claimed arrangement would remain absent” (see remarks pg. 12).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Gong was simply used to teach the term of fraction, and nothing more. The primary reference of Gunasekara was relied on to teach the limitation of allocating, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and apportioning, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), but Gunasekara does not disclose the portion is a fraction. However, Gong disclose each MAP is allocated a fraction of available bandwidth (which also affects the data rate available for each MAP). Accordingly, portion and fraction are interchangeably used when dealing with distributions of bandwidth/data rate to a plurality of MAPs, and it would have been obvious to substitute the term portion of Gunasekara with fraction of Gong. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, as the combination of Gunasekara and Gong teaches the argued limitations, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “The stated rationale does not bridge the identified differences. The Office Action reasons generally that applying a known fractional-bandwidth technique to Gunasekara would yield predictable results. Office Action at 4-5. That rationale addresses only the word "fraction." It does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Gunasekara's subscriber-service allocation so that, after a controller allocates a MAP-level ADR, the MAP locally divides that ADR according to the origin of traffic and reserves first and second portions for first and second origin categories. Because the proposed modification does not account for the limitations that distinguish claim 1, the rejection lacks the required articulated reasoning for reaching the claimed subject matter” (see remarks pg. 12).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Gong was simply brought in to teach the term of fraction, and nothing more. The primary reference of Gunasekara discloses the limitation of allocating, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and apportioning, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), but does not disclose the portion is a fraction. However, Gong disclose each MAP is allocated a fraction of available bandwidth (which also affects the data rate available for each MAP). Accordingly, portion and fraction are interchangeably used when dealing with distributions of bandwidth/data rate to a plurality of MAPs, and it would have been obvious to substitute the term portion of Gunasekara with fraction of Gong. Therefore, as the combination of Gunasekara and Gong teaches the argued limitations, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Claims 2 and 16 The Office Action states that Gunasekara's COS = 2 and COS = 4 are "interpreted as tokens." Office Action at 5-6 and 12-13. A class-of-service identifier is a label for a subscriber service tier; it is not a number of tokens. Likewise, Gunasekara's 20- and 40- megabit-per-second service rates are data rates, not disclosed token counts allocated to different origination types. Gong discusses token-bucket enforcement of a per-client rate, but does not determine separate token quantities for separate origin categories within a given MAP's allocated ADR. See Gong [0013], [0028]-[0030]. The additional limitations of claims 2 and 16 are therefore not taught or suggested” (see remarks pg. 12).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner interprets token as a value/number of class of service of a link for a computer device (see paragraph [0080]). This interpretation is reasonable as the claim does not specify or define details of a token. Tokens used are explained further in the specification, however, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “For claim 3, the Office Action relies on Gong's backhaul, client, and Ethernet interfaces and again treats Gunasekara's COS labels as token quantities. Office Action at 6-8. Gong's disclosure of hardware interfaces does not disclose apportioning a MAP-level ADR among three origination types, providing first, second, and third numbers of tokens at predefined times, and limiting the respective traffic types during a predefined period. See Gong [0024]-[0026]. The rejection identifies no teaching of the claimed three-way token-based metering arrangement at a MAP” (see remarks pg. 13).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner relied on Gunasekara to teach the argued feature of “apportioning a MAP-level ADR among three origination types, providing first, second, and third numbers of tokens at predefined times, and limiting the respective traffic types during a predefined period” and did not rely on Gong. Gong was used by the examiner to teach the particular data types of (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type. The combination of Gong’s teaching into Gunasekara would have resulted in the entirety of claim 3. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Claims 6 and 19 further require that the predefined fraction allocated as the given MAP's ADR be determined based, at least in part, on the MAP's hop level, a number of neighbors of the MAP, and a number of clients. Gong's statement that bandwidth is shared among neighboring MAPs does not disclose using the number of neighbors as an input to determine a predefined fraction. Gong's client-rate calculation uses client count and hop- count information, not a number-of-neighbors parameter and not a per-MAP fraction of the RAP's total ADR. See Gong [0012], [0033]-[0036]. The cited combination therefore does not disclose the additional limitations of claims 6 and 19” (see remarks pg. 13).
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Gong explicitly teaches (in paragraph [0012]) data rate is shared among neighboring MAPs meaning a fraction of available data rate is allocated to the given MAP. This is because it is known that the less bandwidth allocated means less data rate available. Gong’s disclosure of all neighboring MAPs sharing the data rate available reads on “a number of neighbors of the given MAP” as an input to determine the fraction of total ADR allocated to a given MAP. This is because one has to know how many MAPs to distribute the bandwidth/data rate. As Gong teaches the argued claim limitation, the argument is not persuasive.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekara et al. (US 2015/0271826 A1, hereinafter “Gunasekara”) in view of Gong et al. (US 2008/0225737 A1, hereinafter “Gong”).
As to claim 1:
Gunasekara discloses a method of metering data flows within a wireless mesh-tree network having a root access point (RAP) and mesh access points (MAPs) (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]) including a first set of the MAPs at a one-hop level (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]) and a second set of the MAPs at a two-hop level (see Figs. 2-3; Abstract; [0076]-[0080]), the method comprising:
allocating, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and
apportioning, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), wherein a first portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a first origination type and a second portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a second origination type (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose fraction.
However, Gong discloses for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined fraction of a total ADR (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth”; [0012] note: data rate is associated with Bandwidth).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP to be a predefined fraction of a total ADR of the RAP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 2:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses apportioning, at the given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]) by:
determining a first number of tokens that are allocated for the first origination type and a second number of tokens that are allocated for a second origination type (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens); and
transmitting data through the given MAP by: limiting an amount of data of the first origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens), and
limiting an amount of data of the second origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens).
As to claim 3:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses apportioning, at the given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP among three origination types of data, which are (1) [first] data type, (2) [second] data type, and (3) [third] data type, the ADR of the given MAP being apportioned by (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens):
providing, at predefined times, a first number of tokens for the [first] data type, a second number of tokens for the [second] data type, and a third number of tokens for the [third] data type (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class));
limiting, during a predefined time period, an amount of [first] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class));
limiting, during the predefined time period, an amount of [second] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class)); and
limiting, during a predefined time period, an amount of [third] data transmitted through the given MAP to be less than or equal to the third number of tokens (“class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; class of service #3 can support a downlink data rate of 30 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 , COS=3 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens for each data type (i.e., class)).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose three origination types of data, which are (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a BH data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data.
However Gong discloses three origination types of data, which are (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a backhaul (BH) data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data (backhaul traffic as first data type, 802.3 (Ethernet) traffic as second data type and ; client data as third data type; see Figs. 3A/B; [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow three origination types of data, to be (1) a backhaul (BH) data type, (2) an ethernet-bridged data type, and (3) a client data type, where the first data is a BH data, the second data is an ethernet-bridged data, and the third data is a client data. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., types of data) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 6:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gong further discloses wherein the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP is determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth… implementations of the present invention incorporate hop count information as a factor in computing the client data rates for the mesh network”; see [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP to be determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 15:
Gunasekara discloses a computing apparatus (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3, and 7; [0078]; [0080]; [0135]) comprising:
a processor (processor 813; see Fig. 7; [0135]); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to (“computer readable storage media 812 is encoded with management application 140-1 (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) executed by processor 813”; [0139]; [0137]):
allocate, by a controller (management resource 140; Figs. 2-3; [0078]; [0080]), available data rates (ADRs) for the respective MAPs (“the management resource 140 allocates available wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 60 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-1”; see Figs. 2-3; [0077]-[0078]; [0095] “the management resource 140 allocates sufficient wireless bandwidth to support a data rate of 120 megabits per second over wireless communication link 228-2”; [0080] note: data rates is associated with Bandwidth, note 2: links connected to respective MAPs), wherein, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined [portion] of a total ADR of the RAP (“allocates portions of wireless bandwidth in the mesh network to wirelessly communicate between a root access point in the mesh network and each of the multiple interconnected access points”; Abstract; [0069] “When allocating available bandwidth based on hop count, a respective conventional mesh network typically allocates more bandwidth to access points disposed closer to the root access point. Access points further away from the root access point are allocated less bandwidth”; Figs. 2-3; [0006]; Abstract); and
apportion, at a given MAP, the ADR allocated to the given MAP based on an origination type of data flowing through the given MAP (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]), wherein a first portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a first origination type and a second portion of the ADR of the given MAP is designated for a second origination type (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]).
Gunasekara does not explicitly disclose fraction.
However, Gong discloses for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP is a predefined fraction of a total ADR (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth”; [0012] note: data rate is associated with Bandwidth).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow, for each of the MAPs, the ADR allocated to a given MAP to be a predefined fraction of a total ADR of the RAP. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
As to claim 16:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses wherein, when executed by the processor, the stored instructions further configure the apparatus to (“computer readable storage media 812 is encoded with management application 140-1 (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) executed by processor 813”; [0139]; [0137]) apportion the ADR allocated to the given MAP by (“provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; [0076]-[0080]) by:
determining a first number of tokens that are allocated for the first origination type and a second number of tokens that are allocated for a second origination type (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens); and
transmitting data through the given MAP by: limiting an amount of data of the first origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the first number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens), and
limiting an amount of data of the second origination type flowing through the given MAP to less than or equal to the second number of tokens (“the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; see Fig. 2; [0076]-[0080] note: COS =2 and COS =4 are interpreted as tokens).
As to claim 19:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gong further discloses wherein, the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP is determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate supported by mesh access points is essentially shared among all neighboring MAPs, meaning that, due to contention, each MAP receives a fraction of the available bandwidth… implementations of the present invention incorporate hop count information as a factor in computing the client data rates for the mesh network”; see [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Gong into Gunasekara’s system/method as it would allow the predefined fraction of the total ADR of the RAP that is allocated as the ADR of the given MAP to be determined based, at least in part, on a hop level of the given MAP, a number of neighbors of the given MAP, and a number of clients within the wireless mesh-tree network. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art, where applying a known technique (i.e., using a fraction of available bandwidth/ data rate) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement would yield predictable results. Such combination would have also improved similar systems by accounting for the differentiating attributes of wireless mesh networks in addition to facilitating implementation of dynamic rate limiting mechanisms wireless mesh networks (Gong; [0003]; [0012]).
Claims 5, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunasekara (US 2015/0271826 A1) in view of Gong (US 2008/0225737 A1) and further in view of Rahman et al. (US 2006/0268749 A1, hereinafter “Rahman”).
As to claim 5:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue.
However, Rahman discloses shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = topology maintenance data traffic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow shaping traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensures that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
As to claim 14:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above. Gunasekara further discloses reserving portions of the ADRs for the respective MAPs for an origination type, the reserved portions of the ADR being determined to provide sufficient bandwidth for [origination type] to ensure stable operation of the wireless mesh-tree network (“The data rate values assigned to different subscribers may vary depending on a class of service to which each respective client subscribes. For example, by way of a non-limiting example, a first class of service can support 10 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a second class of service can support 20 megabits per second of data through the mesh network to a respective subscriber; a third class of service can support 30 megabits per second; and so on”; [0018] “provide the first downlink data rate to the first client and the second downlink data rate to the second client”; [0081] “the subscriber at computer device 250-4 is assigned class of service #2; the subscriber at computer device 250-5 is assigned class of service #4”; [0080] “class of service #2 can support a downlink data rate of 20 megabits per second to a respective subscriber; … and class of service #4 can support a downlink data rate of 40 megabits per second to a respective subscriber”; Figs. 2-3; [0076]-[0080]). The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong does not explicitly disclose the origination type of control data.
However, Rahman discloses origination type of control data (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = control data)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow the origination type of control data. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
As to claim 18:
The combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong discloses the invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose to shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue.
However, Rahman discloses to shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue (“a wireless mesh point includes a mechanism to classify end user traffic into one of a predefined set of different classes. Thus, one embodiment includes a method in the wireless mesh point for classifying end user traffic into one of the predefined set of different classes”; [0139] “In one implementation, the AC field values classify traffic into one of Voice (AC=3), Video (AC=2), Best Effort (AC=1), and Background (AC=0).”; [0145] note: background = topology maintenance data traffic).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman into the combined system/method of Gunasekara and Gong as it would allow, when executed by the processor, the stored instructions further configure the apparatus to: shape traffic within the wireless mesh tree by assigning topology maintenance data traffic to an access class that ensure that the topology maintenance data traffic will be fed directly into a data queue. Such combination would have been obvious as the references are from analogous art where a motivation would have been to achieve appropriate levels of QoS for the traffic class, thus improving on user experience. This method ensures end-to-end QoS in a mesh network (Rahman; [0141]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-13, 17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
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 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 MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO whose telephone number is (571)272-1250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM to 5:00PM.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MARIELA VIDAL CARPIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
