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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 10 March 2026 and 19 June 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 31 October 2023 in which claims 1, 6, 11, 14, 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 does not further narrow claim 19 as amended from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the comparison” however there are multiple comparisons in the amended claim 11 from which claim 17 depends and it is not clear which comparison.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiussi et al (hereinafter “Chiussi”, 2002/0036984) in view of Dumitrescu (hereinafter “Dumitrescu”, 2015/0016266).
As per Claim 1, Chiussi discloses a computer-implemented method for managing congestion in a network, the method comprising:
maintaining a queue structure used for storing packets and comprising a plurality of sub-queues used to process the packets, wherein the packets in the queue structure are to be dequeued by a scheduler (at least Fig. 3; par. 37-38; flow queues 26, MSS sorter 24 determining shaping and scheduling behavior);
computing a respective packet virtual time for a respective packet based on at least a packet virtual time of a previous packet processed by the same sub-queue, wherein the respective packet virtual time indicates a relative progress of the respective packet in the sub-queue (at least paragraph 5; packet virtual time, finishing virtual time aka timestamp);
updating a global virtual time based on a packet virtual time of a packet being dequeued from the queue structure by the scheduler (at least paragraph 13, 24, 67, 74, 59; distinct calendar queues with flows having respective service intervals, flow timestamp with timestamp-recalibration rule of the flow-dequeue activity), the global virtual time indicating a relative progress of packets dequeued from the plurality of sub-queues (at least paragraph 5; maintaining a global function, referred to as "virtual time" or "system potential", which is a measure of the amount of service that has been provided by a server. A server uses this global function to compute a "finishing virtual time", also referred to as a "timestamp", for each packet in the associated system);
measuring, over a predefined period of time, a rate at which the global virtual time progresses based on the virtual time of all packets dequeued by the scheduler from the queue structure (at least paragraph 5, 40-43, 47-51, 68, 74-75; after packet transmission, flow dequeue operation, service rate monitored and using dual leaky bucket regulating on shaped flows; maintaining a global function, referred to as "virtual time" or "system potential", which is a measure of the amount of service that has been provided by a server. A server uses this global function to compute a "finishing virtual time", also referred to as a "timestamp", for each packet in the associated system); and
managing congestion in the respective sub-queue by comparing the respective sub-queue with an amount of a resource for the queue structure (at least paragraph 37, 68, 9; each flow in a corresponding queue being shaped, having bucket size for shaped flows; shaper slows down the service rate of flow 22-i).
Chiussi fails to explicitly disclose scaling a metric of a respective sub-queue based on the measured rate at which the global virtual time progresses, wherein the measured rate represents a fair rate across the plurality of sub-queues and respective congestion management using the scaled metric.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu teaches, in an analogous packet queue management art, a scheduler prioritizing transmission of packets in queues via packet length-related byte level weighted fair queueing, where queues have different weights and scheduling according to weights and packet lengths and respective NIC time incrementing (at least paragraph 101-104, 55-56, 131-134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known traffic shaping using different queue weights so that all queues can have fair transmission rates even when queues have unfair and larger packet lengths that would otherwise limit the transmission of packets in queues having smaller packet lengths.
Claims 11, 19 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra. Claim 11 is a corresponding computer system, and claim 19 is a corresponding non-transitory medium to method claim 1.
As per Claim 2. Chiussi fails to explicitly disclose wherein managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue comprises dropping one or more packets. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu discloses, in an analogous art, Congestion management may include dropping packets whenever a target scheduler queue is full until a number of packets have been sent from the target egress queue (at least paragraph 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
As per Claim 6. Chiussi fails to explicitly disclose further comprising:
measuring, over the predefined period of time, an aggregate rate at which packets are dequeued from the queue structure; and
determining a fair share ratio based on a ratio of the measured global virtual time rate to the measured aggregate rate,
wherein scaling the metric of the respective sub-queue is based on the fair share ratio. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu discloses, in an analogous art, a scheduler performing dequeue operations by monitoring pipe and queue status with the rate of packets being transmitted (eg. a port conveyor belt) and read a current time in response to each dequeue invocation (at least paragraph 67, 74, 101-104, 131-134; Each time a packet is consumed from queue #i, T(i) is updated as: T(i)+=pkt_len*t(i)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that has the scheduler constantly monitor the queue status based on enqueuing as well as dequeuing, so that scheduling of packets for transmission is based on each packet being dequeued and subsequent queue being emptied, with changing the fair weighting after packet consumption.
Claim 14 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue is further based on a length of the respective sub-queue (at least paragraph 71-72; queue length for flow backlog determination).
Claim 15 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 7 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 9. Chiussi teaches using the measured global virtual time rate to determine if a flow should be shaped (at least paragraph 37, 68, 9), but fails to explicitly disclose computing a dynamic threshold based on the amount of the resource [and the measured global virtual time rate]; comparing a current size of the respective sub-queue to the dynamic threshold; and managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue further based on the comparison. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu discloses, in an analogous art, using a dynamic threshold determination engine to make a weighted random early detection (WRED) decision to determine, based on a comparison of amount of buffer space with the queue fill level reaching a threshold, whether to manage congestion or drop packets (at least paragraph 74). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that manage congestion by using a threshold determination engine to compare a buffer size with queue level in order to prevent a buffer from running out of space.
Claim 17 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 9 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of the resource comprises at least one of: a byte value; a number of packet buffers; or a delay threshold (at least paragraph 4, 8, 44; queues which have packets waiting to be transmitted, simultaneously, each with an instantaneous service rate and delay associated with the respective connection).
Claim 18 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 10 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 12. Chiussi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions to manage the congestion in the sub-queues are further to perform at least one of: drop one or more packets; or change an explicit congestion notification (ECN) value in a header of one or more packets. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu discloses, in an analogous art, Congestion management may include dropping packets whenever a target scheduler queue is full until a number of packets have been sent from the target egress queue (at least paragraph 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
As per Claim 20. Chiussi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions to manage the congestion in the respective sub-queue are further to:
scale the metric of the respective sub-queue based on the rate at which the global virtual time progresses;
compare the scaled metric of the respective sub-queue with the amount of the resource for the queue structure; and
manage the congestion in the respective sub-queue based on the comparison.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Dumitrescu. Dumitrescu teaches, in an analogous packet queue management art, a scheduler prioritizing transmission of packets in queues via packet length-related byte level weighted fair queueing, where queues have different weights and scheduling according to weights and packet lengths and respective NIC time incrementing (at least paragraph 101-104, 55-56, 131-134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Dumitrescu’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Dumitrescu teaches such well known traffic shaping using different queue weights so that all queues can have fair transmission rates even when queues have unfair and larger packet lengths that would otherwise limit the transmission of packets in queues having smaller packet lengths.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiussi in view of Dumitrescu, further in view of Mayer-Wolf et al (hereinafter “Mayer-Wolf”, 2017/0339062).
As per Claim 3. Chiussi and Dumitrescu fail to explicitly disclose wherein managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue comprises changing an explicit congestion notification (ECN) value in a header of one or more packets. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mayer-Wolf. Mayer-Wolf discloses, in an analogous art, when there is flow congestion, a variety of actions can be taken including dropping of packets, ECNs, flow control messages, pausing frames (at least paragraph 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mayer-Wolf’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi/ Dumitrescu as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Mayer-Wolf teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
As per Claim 4. Chiussi and Dumitrescu fail to explicitly disclose wherein managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue comprises transmitting a pause frame. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mayer-Wolf. Mayer-Wolf discloses, in an analogous art, when there is flow congestion, a variety of actions can be taken including dropping of packets, ECNs, flow control markers in flow packets, pausing frames (at least paragraph 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mayer-Wolf’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi / Dumitrescu as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Mayer-Wolf teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
As per Claim 5. Chiussi/ Dumitrescu fails to explicitly disclose wherein managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue comprises transmitting a flow control signal or a flow control packet. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mayer-Wolf. Mayer-Wolf discloses, in an analogous art, when there is flow congestion, a variety of actions can be taken including dropping of packets, ECNs, flow control messages in flow packets, pausing flows (at least paragraph 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mayer-Wolf’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi / Dumitrescu as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Mayer-Wolf teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
As per Claim 8. Chiussi / Dumitrescu fails to explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining a predicted delay based on the length of the respective sub-queue; computing a probability based on the predicted delay and a configured target delay; and managing the congestion in the respective sub-queue further based on the probability. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mayer-Wolf. Mayer-Wolf discloses, in an analogous art, using a dynamic threshold determination engine to make a weighted random early detection (WRED) decision to determine, based on a comparison of the queue fill level to a threshold whether to manage congestion or drop packets (at least paragraph 25-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mayer-Wolf’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi / Dumitrescu as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Mayer-Wolf teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that manage congestion by dropping packets when a queue fill level being probable to fill as detected early.
Claim 16 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 8 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 13. Chiussi / Dumitrescu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions to manage the congestion in the sub-queues are further to transmit at least one of: a pause frame; a flow control signal; or a flow control packet. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mayer-Wolf. Mayer-Wolf discloses, in an analogous art, when there is flow congestion, a variety of actions can be taken including dropping of packets, ECNs, flow control messages in flow packets, pausing flows (at least paragraph 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mayer-Wolf’s congestion avoidance with Chiussi / Dumitrescu as Chiussi teaches (par. 37, 68) slowing down service rates of flows in order to shape particular queues, and Mayer-Wolf teaches such well known additional congestion avoidance techniques that can, and must, be taken in order for a network device to maintain a buffer without running out of free space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights