DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments filed on 04 May 2026 in which claims 1-26 are currently pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,746.
Claims 1, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,108,665.
Claims 1, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,425,306.
Claims 1, 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,088.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et al. (PG Pub US 2002/0150048 A1) in view of Mogul (US Patent No. 6,560,243 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 21, 23, Ha discloses an apparatus and a method for data communication between a first node and a second node over a data path coupling the first node and the second node.
transmitting, by the first node, messages to the second node (“transmission of a particular packet” [0058]);
receiving, at the first node from the second node, acknowledgment messages indicative of successful and unsuccessful delivery of the messages transmitted from the first node to the second node (“receipt of an acknowledgment from the client corresponding to that packet” [0058], “the first data packet in the transmission sequence that has not been acknowledged as received by the client” [0075], “Duplicate acknowledgments are acknowledgments that correspond to the same data packet and may indicate that a preceding data packet was not received, possibly because it is lost or because data packages were reordered by the network” [0079]);
determining, at the first node, a transmission rate of messages from the first node to the second node based on the rate of the acknowledgment messages (“the congestion window, and indirectly the data transmission rate, are adjusted based on the number of data packets acknowledged by acknowledgement signals sent by a client. the number of data segments or data packets effectively acknowledged by an acknowledgement signal sent by a client device is weighted and is used thereafter to increase the congestion window” [0086]) and a correspondence between at least one of the messages transmitted from the first node to the second node and at least one additional message to be transmitted from the first node to the second node (“a congestion window or a timer may be used during error recovery to adjust the transmission rate while controlling congestion, while the sender advertised window may be independently adjusted to ensure efficient error recovery. In a particular embodiment, the congestion window may be reduced in response to congestion and data loss while the sender advertised window may be increased to permit transmission of more data packets, therefore accelerating error recovery. This permits separation of congestion control and flow control, thereby increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the traffic management process and decreasing reaction latency. For example, even if the rate of transmission is decreased upon detection of network congestion, the system may continue to transmit data packets. As a result, the short timer and long timer are repeatedly reset, which prevents the occurrence of a timeout that may lead to a significant reduction in the data transfer rate” [0125], “In the fast retransmit state 910, data packets presumed to be lost along the transmission channel are retransmitted and the data transmission rate is adjusted gradually depending on channel resource availability” [0112]); and
transmitting, from the first node to the second node, the at least one additional message based on the transmission rate of messages from the first node to the second node (“if an incoming acknowledgement signal communicates that the client device has received a total of five data packets, the congestion window may be increased by five data packets. Alternatively, the congestion window may be increased by a different number of packets if a weighing function is used to weigh the number of packets acknowledged. In the latter example, for a particular weighing function, if an incoming acknowledgement signal communicates that the client device has received five data packets, the congestion window may be increased by three or by nine data packets, depending on the characteristics and form of the weighing function” [0086], “determines that the network transmission resources are overloaded, transmission of additional data packets may be suspended until the congestion in the network subsides” [0055], “the congestion window may be reduced in response to congestion and data loss while the sender advertised window may be increased to permit transmission of more data packets, therefore accelerating error recovery” [0125], “In the fast retransmit state 910, data packets presumed to be lost along the transmission channel are retransmitted and the data transmission rate is adjusted gradually depending on channel resource availability” [0112]).
However, Ha does not explicitly disclose the acknowledgment messages are received at a rate and the correspondence is based on a nature of the messages.
Nevertheless, Mogul discloses “the ACK transmission rate of the receiver controls the data transmission rate of the sender” col 4 lines 49-50, “The transmitted data control the sending system such that when the sending system transmits subsequent data packets to the receiving system, such subsequent data packets are transmitted at a rate approximating the target bandwidth allocated to the flow. In one embodiment, the rate at which the transmitted data from the receiving system arrive at the sending system determines the rate at which the sending system transmits the subsequent data packets” abstract; “the client 102 uses the size of the advertised window to control the data transmission rate of the server 106. In the ACK packets 126, the client 102 indicates the amount of data it will accept from the server 102 in a subsequent data packet transmission. This amount is calculated to achieve the target bandwidth when the server 106 transmits subsequent data packets in response to the ACK packets 126” col 6 lines 31-38, “determines the bandwidth directly, based on information provided by a default policy file 170 in the operating system 154 through an user interface, matched against the particular parameters of the flow (such as the identification of the sender or the protocol type)” col 5 lines 52-57.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the acknowledgment messages be received at a rate and the correspondence be based on a nature of the messages because “The maximum amount is determined so that when the sending system transmits subsequent data packets according to that amount, data is transmitted by the sending system to the receiving system at a rate approximating the target bandwidth” abstract.
Regarding claims 2, 12, 22, 24, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses initially determining, at the first node, the transmission rate of messages from the first node to the second node (“the congestion window (snd_cwnd) is used to initially determine the period of a transmit timer and implicitly the data packet transmission rate. This congestion window is initialized in step 508 to a particular value determined by a configurable parameter” [0049]); and
adapting, at the first node, the transmission rate of messages based on at least one parameter of communication between the first node and the second node (“the congestion window, and indirectly the data transmission rate, are adjusted based on the number of data packets acknowledged by acknowledgement signals sent by a client. the number of data segments or data packets effectively acknowledged by an acknowledgement signal sent by a client device is weighted and is used thereafter to increase the congestion window” [0086], “the traffic management process may modify various parameters (e.g., the congestion window) in response to different conditions present in the network (e.g., traffic congestion). Modification of such parameters may result in adjustment of the period of the transmit timer, and consequently of the transmission rate” [0070]).
Regarding claims 3, 13, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses detecting, at the first node, a delay of packet delivery to the second node, wherein the delay occurs while transmitting the at least one additional message from the first node to the second node based on the transmission rate; and reducing, at the first node, the transmission rate based on the delay of packet delivery to the second node (“if congestion is detected in step 820, the traffic management process decreases the congestion window in step 822 and enters state CONGAVOID_REDUCED (824)” [0105], “a decision is made whether more than two packets have been lost and need to be retransmitted. If so, then the congestion window snd_cwnd is reduced in step 944 from the value it had upon entering the fast retransmit state 910” [0119]).
Regarding claims 4, 14, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses the delay of packet delivery to the second node is based on a reduction of the rate of the acknowledgment messages received at the first node from the second node (“when signals acknowledging receipt of data packages by a receiving device are lost and do not reach the server” [0087]).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses determining, at the first node, a ratio of received acknowledgment messages to transmitted additional packets from the first node to the second node, wherein the reducing of the transmission rate is based on the ratio (“data packets are transmitted at a rate determined based on the ratio between a smoothed estimate of the round trip time and a smoothed congestion window” [0063]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses receiving, at the first node from the second node, a parameter determined by the second node, the parameter is based on the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node, and the transmission rate of messages is based on the parameter (”controlling the data transmission rate by adjusting the period of the transmit timer based on modification of the congestion window and smoothed round trip time measurements” [0056]).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses a round-trip time (RTT) associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node,
a one-way trip time (OWTT) associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node,
a congestion window associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node,
a pacing rate associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node,
a packet loss rate associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node, or
a number of overhead packets associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node (”controlling the data transmission rate by adjusting the period of the transmit timer based on modification of the congestion window and smoothed round trip time measurements” [0056]).
Regarding claims 10, 20, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses a size of a congestion window associated with the transmitting the messages from the first node to the second node, or a number of packets to be transmitted by the first node to the second node (”controlling the data transmission rate by adjusting the period of the transmit timer based on modification of the congestion window and smoothed round trip time measurements” [0056]).
Regarding claim 25, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses the at least one additional message to be transmitted from the first node to the second node is associated with a recovery of a possible packet loss associated with the transmitting at least one of the messages by the first node to the second node (“when signals acknowledging receipt of data packages by a receiving device are lost and do not reach the server, the server may increase the congestion window by a smaller amount in response to the fewer incoming acknowledgement signals” [0087], “In the fast retransmit state 910, data packets presumed to be lost along the transmission channel are retransmitted and the data transmission rate is adjusted gradually depending on channel resource availability” [0112]).
Regarding claim 26, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Ha discloses the at least one additional message to be transmitted from the first node to the second node is associated with a recovery of a possible packet loss associated with at least two of the messages transmitted by the first node to the second node (“when signals acknowledging receipt of data packages by a receiving device are lost and do not reach the server, the server may increase the congestion window by a smaller amount in response to the fewer incoming acknowledgement signals” [0087], “In the fast retransmit state 910, data packets presumed to be lost along the transmission channel are retransmitted and the data transmission rate is adjusted gradually depending on channel resource availability” [0112], “This process ensures that the congestion window is only decreased if a second data loss is detected, but not before” [0123]).
Claims 6-7, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha, Mogul in view of Andreasson et al. (EP 1010287 B1).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Ha, Mogul does not explicitly disclose adjusting, at the first node, a parameter of a forward error correction between the first node and the second node, wherein the adjusting is based on the rate of the acknowledgment messages, the transmitting the at least one additional message from the first node to the second node is based on the parameter of the forward error correction.
Nevertheless, Andreasson discloses “The state of the channel is implicitly determined by the transmitter based upon the frequency of acknowledgements (automatic repeat request and negative automatic repeat request) arriving from the receiver. For example, since a negative automatic repeat request implies a weak received signal strength, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously reduced in response to such an acknowledgement. On the other hand, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously increased in response to an automatic repeat request.. If the acknowledgement indicates a large number of errors at the receiver, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously reduced in response thereto” [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a parameter of a forward error correction between the first node and the second node based on the rate of the acknowledgment messages, the transmitting the additional messages from the first node to the second node is based on the parameter of the forward error correction because it will allow “adaptive hybrid automatic repeat request coding in which the coding is modified based on the acknowledgements returned by the receiver” [0018].
Regarding claims 7, 17, Ha, Mogul discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Ha, Mogul does not explicitly disclose the parameter of the forward error correction includes at least one of, a code rate of the forward error correction, or a packet transmission rate of packets transmitted from the first node to the second node.
Nevertheless, Andreasson discloses “The state of the channel is implicitly determined by the transmitter based upon the frequency of acknowledgements (automatic repeat request and negative automatic repeat request) arriving from the receiver. For example, since a negative automatic repeat request implies a weak received signal strength, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously reduced in response to such an acknowledgement. On the other hand, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously increased in response to an automatic repeat request.. If the acknowledgement indicates a large number of errors at the receiver, the code rate of the FEC is advantageously reduced in response thereto” [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the parameter of the forward error correction includes at least one of, a code rate of the forward error correction, or a packet transmission rate of packets transmitted from the first node to the second node because it will allow “adaptive hybrid automatic repeat request coding in which the coding is modified based on the acknowledgements returned by the receiver” [0018].
Response to Arguments
Previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,746 is maintained.
Previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,108,665 is maintained.
Previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,425,306 is maintained.
Previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims 1, 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,088 is maintained.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have argued regarding claims 1, 11, 21, 23 that “Mogul's disclosure relates to receiver-controlled bandwidth allocation based on flow parameters such as protocol type or sender identification. This is fundamentally different from "transmission rate of messages" determined at least in part by a "correspondence between at least one of the messages transmitted and at least one additional message transmitted, wherein the correspondence is based on a nature of the messages."” (page 3).
In response to Applicants’ argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed above, Mogul shows a relationship of a transmission rate being adapted based on the ACK rate received. Mogul discloses “the ACK transmission rate of the receiver controls the data transmission rate of the sender” col 4 lines 49-50, “the client 102 uses the size of the advertised window to control the data transmission rate of the server 106. In the ACK packets 126, the client 102 indicates the amount of data it will accept from the server 102 in a subsequent data packet transmission. This amount is calculated to achieve the target bandwidth when the server 106 transmits subsequent data packets in response to the ACK packets 126” col 6 lines 31-38. This shows that the transmission rate depends on the rate of ACK messages and retransmission packets. Additionally, the claimed limitations do not further define or describe what “a nature of the messages” mean or how “the correspondence” relates to the transmission rate. Therefore, the combination of Ha and Mogul discloses the limitations of claims 1, 11, 21, 23.
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 CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights