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
This office action is a response to application no. 18/534,554 filed on 12/08/2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/CN2022/097328 filed on June 7, 2022, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. CN202110648652.6 filed on June 10, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 13 – 16, 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 12, and 14 of application no. 18/533,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed towards an information transmission and data transmission methods. With respect to the independent claims of the instant application and the co-pending application, please see the direct claim comparison in the Table 1 below. This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Table 1: Claim comparison between instant application and Co-pending application.
Instant application no. 18/534,554
Co-pending application no. 18/533,248
1. A method for data control, comprising:
obtaining, by a first communication device, first information or index information used to indicate a value of the first information; and
performing, by the first communication device, a quality of service (QOS) control operation according to the first information or the index information used to indicate the value of the first information,
wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following:
data description information of a data packet;
data tunnel association information;
data set association information; or
first operation indication information
1. An information transmission method, comprising:
receiving, by a first communication device, first information and/or index information for indicating a value of the first information, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following:
data description information of a data packet;
data set association information; and
first operation indication information; and
performing, by the first communication device, a quality of service (QoS) control operation on a data packet based on the first information and/or the index information for indicating the value of the first information.
As can be seen from the direct claim comparison of Table 1, claim 1 of instant application is similar of claim 1 of the co-pending application. Dissimilar parts are obvious variation of one another. Similar claim comparison can be shown for instant claim 15 vs. co-pending claim 11.
The claims of the instant application that are rejected under ODP are listed in table 2.
Table 2: instant claims vs. Co-pending claims.
Instant application No. 18/534,554
Co-pending application no. 18/533,248
1 – 3
1 – 3
5 – 8
5 – 8
13
9
14
10
15
11
16
12
18
14
Accordingly, instant claims 1 – 3, 5 – 8, 13 – 16, 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of ODP as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5 – 12, and 14 of co-pending Application no. 18/533,248.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 8, 13 – 15 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giaretta et al. (Giaretta hereinafter referred to Giaretta) (US 2009/0300207 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Giaretta teaches (Abstract, Systems and methodologies are described that facilitate tunneling within wireless communication systems) a method for data control (Fig.8 and [0075], a methodology 800 for facilitating enhancements to policy and charging control (PCC) in order to facilitate tunneling of data), comprising:
obtaining, by a first communication device ([0068], The UE receives data flow along with the associated flow identification information), first information (Fig.8 and [0075], flow identification information is received in step 802. Here, the flow identification information is a first information) or index information used to indicate a value of the first information (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only), and
performing, by the first communication device, a quality of service (QoS) control operation according to the first information or the index information used to indicate the value of the first information (Fig.8 and [0075], flow identification information and associated policy and charging control (PCC) rules are received for implementing with a data flow. At 804, the received rules are implemented for the data flow and the data packets are transmitted in accordance with the rules, e.g., the rules are QoS rules that facilitate transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the QoS rules are implemented on the data flow; i.e. QoS control operation is performed according to the received first information),
wherein the first information comprises at least one of (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only) the following:
data description information of a data packet (Abstract, the flow identification information for identifying different IP flows originating at a plurality of sources; [0067], the flow identification information is used to uniquely identify each of the plurality of flows associating the UE 304. Here, the flow identification information identifies different IP flows, uniquely identify each flow; i.e. it is flow/ data description information);
data tunnel association information;
data set association information; or
first operation indication information.
Regarding claim 2, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches wherein the data description information of the data packet comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
description information of a data set to which the data packet belongs ([0011], flow identification information acts as a unique identifier; [0012], the flow identification information represented as flow labels to uniquely identify encrypted data flows. Here, the flow identification identifies the data flow/ data set; i.e. it provides information to which the data packet belongs) or index information used to indicate the description information of the data set; and information used to identify the data packet;
type information of the data packet;
importance level of the data packet; or
timestamp information of the data packet.
Regarding claim 3, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches wherein the description information of the data set comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
information used to identify the data set ([0012], the flow identification information represented as flow labels to uniquely identify encrypted data flows);
importance level information of the data set;
type information of the data set;
label information of the data set; or
a sequence number of the data set.
Regarding claim 6, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches
wherein the first operation indication information comprises: operation information (Fig.8 and [0075], At 804, the received rules are implemented for the data flow and the data packets are transmitted in accordance with the rules. Here, transmission of the data packets in accordance with the rules is the first operation information); or (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only)
the first operation indication information comprises: operation information and further comprises at least one of the following:
description information of third data tunnel or description information of fourth data tunnel;
description information of a third data or description information of a fourth data;
description information of a third data set or description information of a fourth data set
description information of a fifth data set;
a first data tunnel group;
a first data set group;
first time period; or
information about a timestamp difference interval;
wherein the first time period indicates one of the following: executing the operation information within the first time period and an effective time period of the operation information;
the third data is data in the third data tunnel;
the fourth data is data in the fourth data tunnel;
data in the third data set is data in the third data tunnel; or
data in the fourth data set is data in the fourth data tunnel (Since, this part of the claim is linked to the alternative language “or”; therefore, it is not addressed by the examiner),
wherein the operation information is used to indicate at least one of the following:
discarding or not sending a data packet;
performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets ([0061], each of flows has specific rules to be implemented such as, QoS considerations or rules for charging a subscriber for services rendered associated therewith; the QoS considerations depend on the type of data being generated or type of service plan associated with the UE; [0066], particular Flow identification information associated with respective QoS pipes utilized by the UE; [0075], QoS rules facilitates transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the transmission of the data packets according to the QoS consideration to appropriate QoS pipes is a matched/ coordinated arrangements/ scheduling operation on data packets);
performing a reordering operation on a data packet; or
sending a data packet according to an importance level.
Regarding claim 7, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches wherein
the description information of the third data and the description information of the fourth data are used to indicate when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, the fourth data is discarded or not sent; or (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only)
the description information of the third data is used to indicate when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, data that meets at least one of the following in the fourth data tunnel is discarded or not sent: other data that is dependent on the third data in a same data set; other data that is associated with the third data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is lower than that of the third data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the third data belongs; or
the description information of the fourth data is used to indicate when data that meets a first condition in the third data tunnel is lost or sent, the fourth data is discarded or not sent, wherein the first condition comprises at least one of the following: data on which the fourth data is dependent in a same data set; other data that is associated with the fourth data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the fourth data belongs; or
the description information of the third data set and the description information of the fourth data set are used to indicate when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, data in the fourth data set is discarded or not sent; or
the description information of the third data set is used to indicate when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, data that meets at least one of the following in the fourth data tunnel is discarded or not sent: data in a data set that is dependent on the third data set; data in a data set having an association relationship with a first data set; or data in a data set whose importance level is lower than that of the third data set; or
the description information of the fourth data set is used to indicate when a data set that meets a second condition in the third data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, data in the fourth data set is discarded or not sent, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of the following: a data set on which the fourth data set is dependent; a data set associated with the fourth data set; or a data set whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data set; or
the description information of the fifth data set is used to indicate a data set to which the operation information is applicable; or
description information of the first data set group ([0061], The rules which comprises description of an IP flow wherein the IP flow is identified by a filter, the source of the flow. Here, description of an IP flow is the description information of the first data set group) is used to indicate a data set to which the operation information is applicable (Fig.8 and [0075], methodology 800 for facilitating enhancements to policy and charging control (PCC) in order to facilitate tunneling of data; At 804, the received rules are implemented for the data flow and the data packets are transmitted in accordance with the rules. Here, implementation of the rules is an operation; therefore, the operation is applied on the data flow/ data set); or
the description information of the first data tunnel group is used to indicate a data tunnel to which the operation information is applicable.
Regarding claim 8, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches
wherein the QoS control operation comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
discarding or not sending a data packet;
performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets ([0061], each of flows has specific rules to be implemented such as, QoS considerations or rules for charging a subscriber for services rendered associated therewith; the QoS considerations depend on the type of data being generated or type of service plan associated with the UE; [0066], particular Flow identification information associated with respective QoS pipes utilized by the UE; [0075], QoS rules facilitates transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the transmission of the data packets according to the QoS consideration to appropriate QoS pipes is a matched/ coordinated arrangements/ scheduling operation on data packets);
performing a reordering operation on a data packet; or
sending a data packet according to an importance level.
Regarding claim 13, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches wherein
the obtaining first information or index information used to indicate a value of the first information (as mentioned in claim 1) comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
receiving, from control plane signaling or a first header of a data packet ([0016], the flow identification information is transmitted in an outer header of the flows), the first information or the index information used to indicate the value of the first information ([0065], the flow ID is a 8-bit or 16-bit value within outer IP-header for labeling specific data flows); and
obtaining the first information according to a local configuration;
wherein the first header of the data packet is a header of a first protocol (Fig.3B and [0069], outer IP header 358).
Regarding claim 14, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches
wherein the receiving, from control plane signaling or a first header of a data packet, the first information or the index information used to indicate the value of the first information comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
receiving data description information of the data packet from the first header of the data packet (Fig.3B and [0069], the outer IP header 358 comprises source and destination information identifying the "endpoints" of the tunnel), or receiving, from the control plane signaling, other content in the first information except the data description information of the data packet;
receiving, from the control plane signaling, the index information used to indicate the value of the first information; or
receiving, from the first header of the data packet, the index information used to indicate the value of the first information
Regarding claim 15, Giaretta teaches (Abstract, Systems and methodologies are described that facilitate tunneling within wireless communication systems) an a method for data control (Fig.7 and [0074], a methodology 700 that facilitates tunneling in communication systems), comprising:
receiving, by a second communication device ([0068], The UE receives data flow along with the associated flow identification information), a data packet (Fig.7 and [0074], at 702, one or more packet flows and related flow identification information such as Flow ID, a Flow label or a pointer associated with the one or more packet flows are received. Here, the packet flow is a data packet); and
performing, by the second communication device, a second operation on the received data packet (Fig.7 and [0074], At 704, the Flow identification information are used to identify the policies such as charging rules and/or QoS rules for the related data flows; at 706, the identified policies are transmitted to an access mechanism for application with the data flow associated with the received flow identification information. Here, the steps 704 and 706 are second operation performed on the received data packet),
wherein the second operation comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
performing a data tunnel mapping operation ([0062], a correct QoS treatment to the data packets within the tunnel. Here, the tunnel is a data tunnel; [0068], matching between the flow ID and the appropriate flow policies, such as QoS category is facilitated at the UE. [0075], QoS rules facilitates transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the transmission of the data packets according to the QoS consideration to appropriate QoS pipes is a matching/ mapping operation on data packet/ data tunnel);
identifying whether the data packet is data that conforms to data characteristic information;
adding, to a first header of a data packet that conforms to the data characteristic information, target information that conforms to the data characteristic information;
adding target information corresponding to a default data set to a first header of a data packet that does not conform to the data characteristic information, or adding target information corresponding to a default data set to a first header of data that does not conform to any non-default data set mapping rule; and
adding target information corresponding to a default data set to a first header of a data packet that does not conform to data characteristic information in any non-default data set mapping rule,
wherein the target information comprises at least one of the following: first information or index information used to indicate a value of the first information (Fig.7 and [0074], at 702 one or more packet flows and related flow identification information such as Flow ID, a Flow label or a pointer associated with the one or more packet flows are received. Here, the flow identification information is a first information); and
the first information comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
data description information of a data packet (Abstract, the flow identification information for identifying different IP flows originating at a plurality of sources; [0067], the flow identification information is used to uniquely identify each of the plurality of flows associating the UE 304. Here, the flow identification information identifies different IP flows, uniquely identify each flow; i.e. it is flow/ data description information);
data tunnel association information;
data set association information; or
first operation indication information.
Regarding claim 18, combination of Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches
wherein the performing a second operation (Fig.7, the steps 704 and 706 are second operation) comprises:
obtaining, by the second communication device, a first operation rule (Fig.7 and [0074], At 704, the Flow identification information are used to identify the policies such as charging rules and/or QoS rules for the related data flows. Here, the identifying the policies is obtaining a first operating rule) and
performing, by the second communication device, the second operation according to the first operating rule (Fig.7 and [0074], at 706, the identified policies are transmitted to an access mechanism for application with the data flow associated with the received flow identification information);
wherein the first operation rule comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
the data characteristic information;
target information corresponding to the data characteristic information;
operation information used to instruct to add the target information to the first header of the data packet; or
a data tunnel mapping rule ([0062], a correct QoS treatment to the data packets within the tunnel. Here, the tunnel is a data tunnel; [0068], matching between the flow ID and the appropriate flow policies, such as QoS category is facilitated at the UE. [0075], QoS rules facilitates transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the transmission of the data packets according to the QoS consideration to appropriate QoS pipes is a matching/ mapping a flow policy/ rule on data packet/ data tunnel).
Regarding claim 19, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches
wherein the data characteristic information comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only): description information of a service ([0061], one data flow facilitates browsing the Internet, while another data flow facilitates VoIP services; each of these flows has specific rules to be implemented such as, QoS considerations or rules for charging a subscriber for services rendered associated therewith; the QoS considerations depend on the type of data being generated or type of service plan associated with the UE. Therefore, description information of a service is data characteristic information), a data characteristic description, second header information corresponding to the data characteristic information, protocol information to which the data characteristic information belongs, protocol layer information to which the data characteristic information belongs, or data association information.
Regarding claim 20, Giaretta teaches (Abstract, Systems and methodologies are described that facilitate tunneling within wireless communication systems) an electronic device (Fig.14 and [0100], system 1400 resides within a UE. Here, UE is an electronic device), comprising a memory (Fig.14 and [0100], a memory 1410) storing a computer program (Fig.14 and [0100], memory 1410 retains instructions); and a processor (Fig.14 and [0100], a processor) coupled to the memory (Fig.14) and configure to execute the computer program to perform operations (Fig.14 and [0100], instructions for executing functions associated with electrical components 1404, 1406 and 1408; functions implemented by a processor, software, or combination thereof) comprising:
obtaining ([0068], The UE receives data flow along with the associated flow identification information) first information (Fig.8 and [0075], flow identification information is received in step 802. Here, the flow identification information is a first information) or index information used to indicate a value of the first information (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only), and
performing a quality of service (QoS) control operation according to the first information or the index information used to indicate the value of the first information (Fig.8 and [0075], flow identification information and associated policy and charging control (PCC) rules are received for implementing with a data flow. At 804, the received rules are implemented for the data flow and the data packets are transmitted in accordance with the rules, e.g., the rules are QoS rules that facilitate transmission of the data packets in the appropriate QoS pipes. Here, the QoS rules are implemented on the data flow; i.e. QoS control operation is performed according to the received first information),
wherein the first information comprises at least one of (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only) the following:
data description information of a data packet (Abstract, the flow identification information for identifying different IP flows originating at a plurality of sources; [0067], the flow identification information is used to uniquely identify each of the plurality of flows associating the UE 304. Here, the flow identification information identifies different IP flows, uniquely identify each flow; i.e. it is flow/ data description information);
data tunnel association information;
data set association information; or
first operation indication information.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of Sung et al. (Sung hereinafter referred to Sung) (US 2014/0294018 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the data tunnel association information comprises at least one of the following:
description information of a data tunnel on which a data tunnel A is dependent;
description information of a data tunnel that is dependent on the data tunnel A;
description information of data tunnels having an association relationship; or
description information of a data tunnel group,
wherein the data tunnel group comprises two or more data tunnels having an association relationship.
However, Sung teaches (Title, PROTOCOL FOR LAYER TWO MULTIPLE NETWORK LINKS TUNNELLING)
wherein the data tunnel association information comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
description information of a data tunnel on which a data tunnel A is dependent ([0005] and [0024], tunnel association information contains a network link identification (NLID) and a tunnel sequence number (TSN); The NLID is used to identify the network link a layer 3 packet belonging to; Fig.1 and [0025], TSN is used to assist the receiving router, such as router 105; [0030], Tunnel association information is used to allow router 103 to communicate with router 105 in order to associate a layer 3 packet with a VPN tunnel. Here, the NLID and the TSN are description information of a data tunnel on which a data tunnel is dependent);
description information of a data tunnel that is dependent on the data tunnel A;
description information of data tunnels having an association relationship; or
description information of a data tunnel group,
wherein the data tunnel group comprises two or more data tunnels having an association relationship.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 1 and further incorporate the teaching of Sung. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and system for using tunnel association information which contains a network link identification (NLID) and a tunnel sequence number (TSN), in a layer 3 packet to provide layer 2 tunnels over layer 3 networks while improving performance and reducing complexity comparing to other layer 2 tunnelling methods and systems (Sung, Abstract and [0005]).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of MUSA (US 2021/0367871 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
description information of a data set on which a data set A is dependent;
description information of a data set that is dependent on the data set A;
description information of a data set associated with a data set to which the data packet belongs;
description information of data sets having an association relationship; or
description information of a data set group,
wherein the data set group comprises two or more data sets having an association relationship.
However, MUSA teaches (Title, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UTILIZING A NEURAL NETWORK MODEL TO PERFORM PACKET CAPTURE DATA ANALYSIS)
wherein the data set association information comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
description information of a data set on which a data set A is dependent;
description information of a data set that is dependent on the data set A;
description information of a data set associated with a data set to which the data packet belongs;
description information of data sets having an association relationship ([0024], the packet data sets in a data structure, that includes an indication of packets that are associated with one another, packet data of those packets, classified packet data of those packets, a traffic flow to which those packets belong; [0027], the packet data set is associated with one or more problem packets. Here, description information of the data set provides an association relationship); or
description information of a data set group;
wherein the data set group comprises two or more data sets having an association relationship.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 1 and further incorporate the teaching of MUSA. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods for utilizing a neural network model to perform packet capture data analysis, wherein the analysis is used to improve network performance, reduce latency, increase reliability, reduce a quantity of dropped sessions and/or dropped calls, and/or the like (MUSA, Title and [0011]).
Regarding claim 11, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets comprises performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets that meet a third condition,
wherein the third condition comprises at least one of the following:
data sets to which the data packets belong are the same;
there is an association relationship between the data sets to which the data packets belong;
there is an association relationship between data tunnels to which the data packets belong;
timestamps of the data packets are the same or a timestamp difference time is within a timestamp difference interval range;
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by the description information of the fifth data set in the first operation indication information;
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by description information of the first data set group in the first operation indication information; or
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by description information of the first data tunnel group in the first operation indication information.
However, MUSA teaches (Title, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UTILIZING A NEURAL NETWORK MODEL TO PERFORM PACKET CAPTURE DATA ANALYSIS)
wherein the performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets comprises performing a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets that meet a third condition ([0021], analysis platform 115 groups packet data with timestamps that satisfy a condition. Here, grouping the packet data with timestamps is considered as a coordinated scheduling operation on data packets),
wherein the third condition comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
data sets to which the data packets belong are the same ([0023], the analysis platform 115 groups packet data that has the same 5-tuple information and timestamps that satisfy a condition (e.g., are within a threshold amount of time of one another) into the same packet data set. Here, the packet data and the packet data set having the same 5-tuple information and timestamps);
there is an association relationship between the data sets to which the data packets belong;
there is an association relationship between data tunnels to which the data packets belong;
timestamps of the data packets are the same or a timestamp difference time is within a timestamp difference interval range;
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by the description information of the fifth data set in the first operation indication information;
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by description information of the first data set group in the first operation indication information; or
the data set to which the data packet belongs conforms to a data set indicated by description information of the first data tunnel group in the first operation indication information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 7 and further incorporate the teaching of MUSA. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide systems and methods for utilizing a neural network model to perform packet capture data analysis, wherein the analysis is used to improve network performance, reduce latency, increase reliability, reduce a quantity of dropped sessions and/or dropped calls, and/or the like (MUSA, Title and [0011]).
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of Haarsten (US 2002/0036986 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the discarding or not sending a data packet comprises at least one of the following:
when first data in a first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following in a second data tunnel: other data that is dependent on the first data in a same data set; other data that is associated with the first data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is lower than that of the first data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the first data belongs;
when data that meets a fourth condition in the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending second data in the second data tunnel, wherein the data meeting the fourth condition comprises at least one of the following: data on which the second data is dependent in a same data set; other data that is associated with the second data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is higher than that of the second data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the second data belongs;
when a first data set of the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following in the second data tunnel: data in a data set that is dependent on the first data set; data in a data set having an association relationship with the first data set; or data in a data set whose importance level is lower than that of the third data set;
when a data set that meets a fifth condition in the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in a second data set of the second data tunnel, wherein the data set meeting the fifth condition comprises at least one of the following: a data set on which the second data set is dependent; a data set associated with the second data set; or a data set whose importance level is higher than that of the second data set;
when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending the fourth data;
when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following: other data that is dependent on the third data in a same data set; other data that is associated with the third data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is lower than that of the third data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the third data belongs;
when data that meets a sixth condition is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending the fourth data, wherein the data meeting the sixth condition comprises at least one of the following: data on which the fourth data is dependent in a same data set; other data that is associated with the fourth data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the fourth data belongs;
when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in the fourth data set;
when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following: data in another data set that is dependent on the third data set; data in another data set having an association relationship with the first data set; or data in a data set whose importance level is lower than that of the third data set; or
when a data set that meets a seventh condition is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in the fourth data set, wherein the data set meeting the seventh condition comprises at least one of the following: a data set on which the fourth data set is dependent; a data set associated with the fourth data set; or a data set whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data set.
However, Haarsten teaches (Title, Method And Apparatus For Managing Traffic Flows)
wherein the discarding or not sending a data packet comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
when first data in a first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following in a second data tunnel: other data that is dependent on the first data in a same data set; other data that is associated with the first data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is lower than that of the first data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the first data belongs;
when data that meets a fourth condition in the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending second data in the second data tunnel, wherein the data meeting the fourth condition comprises at least one of the following: data on which the second data is dependent in a same data set; other data that is associated with the second data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is higher than that of the second data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the second data belongs;
when a first data set of the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following in the second data tunnel: data in a data set that is dependent on the first data set; data in a data set having an association relationship with the first data set; or data in a data set whose importance level is lower than that of the third data set;
when a data set that meets a fifth condition in the first data tunnel is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in a second data set of the second data tunnel, wherein the data set meeting the fifth condition comprises at least one of the following: a data set on which the second data set is dependent; a data set associated with the second data set; or a data set whose importance level is higher than that of the second data set;
when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending the fourth data (Fig.1 and [0042], Segment failures in the various traffic flows 100/102/104 are indicated by a cross 108 above the corresponding failed segments in the flow. Segment failures is the result of a complete loss of the segment data; [0046], when errors 108 in the traffic flows 100/102/104 are detected by the data recipient, the data sender "stops" transmission of the next segment 106 (e.g. segment D in the message ABCD of flow 102) in the message. Here, the error 108 is a lost or failure data. Segment C is considered as a third data and segment D is a forth data; therefore, the fourth data is discarded or not sent when the third data is lost or fail);
when the third data is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following: other data that is dependent on the third data in a same data set; other data that is associated with the third data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is lower than that of the third data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the third data belongs;
when data that meets a sixth condition is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending the fourth data, wherein the data meeting the sixth condition comprises at least one of the following: data on which the fourth data is dependent in a same data set; other data that is associated with the fourth data in the same data set; other data in the same data set; or other data whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data in the same data set, wherein the same data set is a data set to which the fourth data belongs;
when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in the fourth data set;
when the third data set is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data that meets at least one of the following: data in another data set that is dependent on the third data set; data in another data set having an association relationship with the first data set; or data in a data set whose importance level is lower than that of the third data set; or
when a data set that meets a seventh condition is lost or fails to be sent, discarding or not sending data in the fourth data set, wherein the data set meeting the seventh condition comprises at least one of the following: a data set on which the fourth data set is dependent; a data set associated with the fourth data set; or a data set whose importance level is higher than that of the fourth data set.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 7 and further incorporate the teaching of Haarsten. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a generalized methodology for supporting asynchronous, synchronous, and isochronous services by efficiently managing the respective traffic flows for these services carried on a common information medium (Haarsten, [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Giaretta and Haarsten teaches all the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Giaretta further teaches wherein
the first data is one of the following (Due to alternative language “one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only): any data in the first data tunnel (Fig.1 and [0058], data packets within a communication tunnel; a correct QoS treatment to the data packets within the tunnel; Fig.8 and [0075], received rules are implemented for the data flow and the data packets are transmitted in accordance with the rules. Here, the communication tunnel is a first data tunnel and data packets are considered as a plurality of data, i.e. first data, second data, and so on; therefore, the first data packet/ first data is any data in the first data tunnel), data that is in the first data tunnel and that has an association relationship with the second data, or data that is in the first data tunnel and that is in a same data set as the second data; or (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only)
the second data is one of the following: any data in the second data tunnel, data that is in the second data tunnel and that has an association relationship with the first data, or data that is in the second data tunnel and that is in a same data set as the first data; or
a data set is one of the following: any data set in a data tunnel, the third data set comprised in the first operation indication information, the fourth data set comprised in the first operation indication information, or any data set in the first data set group comprised in the first operation indication information; or
the first data set is a data set that meets one of the following in the first data tunnel: any data set, the fifth data set in the first operation indication information, any data set in the first data set group comprised in the first operation indication information, a data set having an association relationship with the second data set, or the third data set; or
the second data set is a data set that meets one of the following in the second data tunnel: any data set, the fifth data set comprised in the first operation indication information, any data set in the first data set group comprised in the first operation indication information, a data set having an association relationship with the first data set, or the fourth data set; or
the first data tunnel is one of the following: any data tunnel of a terminal, the third data tunnel, or any data tunnel in the first data tunnel group comprised in the first operation indication information; or
the second data tunnel is one of the following: any data tunnel of a terminal, the fourth data tunnel, or any data tunnel in the first data tunnel group comprised in the first operation indication information.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of Binns (US 8,351,327 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the performing a reordering operation on a data packet comprises reordering the data packet according to at least one of the following: a priority of a data tunnel, an importance level of a data set, data set association information, or a timestamp of the data packet; or
when the data packet is sent according to the importance level, the importance level comprises at least one of the following: an importance level of the data packet, importance of a data set, or a priority of a data tunnel.
However, Binns teaches (Title, Intermediate Network Device Applying Application-layer Quality Of Service To Channels Within A Communication Session)
wherein the performing a reordering operation on a data packet comprises reordering the data packet according to at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only): a priority of a data tunnel, an importance level of a data set (claims 10 and 22, performing QoS processing comprises analyzing packets associated with one of the data channels to determine a priority level associated with the application-layer data, and reordering the packets based on the priority level. Here, reordering the data packets is based on the priority/ importance level of application-layer data (i.e. a data set)), data set association information, or a timestamp of the data packet; or (Due to alternative language “or” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only)
when the data packet is sent according to the importance level, the importance level comprises at least one of the following: an importance level of the data packet, importance of a data set, or a priority of a data tunnel
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 7 and further incorporate the teaching of Binns. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide techniques for improved transmission of communication sessions over a network (Binns, Col1: line 34 – 40).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of VASUDEVAN (US 2019/0238460 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the identifying whether the data packet is data matching data that conforms to data characteristic information comprises:
identifying, according to header information of a second protocol of the data packet, whether the data packet is data that conforms to the data characteristic information.
However VASUDEVAN teaches (Title, AVAILABILITY OF CONTEXT INFORMATION FOR PACKET PROCESSING)
wherein the identifying whether the data packet is data matching data that conforms to data characteristic information comprises:
identifying, according to header information of a second protocol of the data packet, whether the data packet is data that conforms to the data characteristic information ([0077], look-up table comprising packet characteristics and associated context pointer; determine if a packet has characteristics matching an entry stored in the look-up-table; [0051], a look-up-table associating packet characteristics with a context pointer; packet characteristics are one or more of: source MAC address, destination MAC address, IPv4 source address, IPv4 destination address, portion of a TCP header. Here, TCP header is a second-protocol header; therefore, according to header information of a second protocol of the data packet, it is identified whether the data packet is data that matches/ follows/ conforms to the data characteristic information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 15 and further incorporate the teaching of VASUDEVAN. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide techniques for context availability during packet processing to improve I/O processing performance (VASUDEVAN, [0002] and [0024]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giaretta in view of Regnier et al. (Regnier hereinafter referred to Regnier) (US 2005/0058147 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Giaretta teaches all the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Giaretta does not specifically teach
wherein the performing a data tunnel mapping operation comprises at least one of the following:
mapping data that meets at least one of the following to different data tunnels: data in different data sets, data in different types of data sets, data in data sets having different importance levels, different types of data, data having different importance levels, different types of data in a same data set, or data having different importance levels data in a same data set;
mapping data that meets at least one of the following to a same data tunnel: data in a same data set, data in a same type of data set, data in data sets having a same importance level, a same type of data, data having a same importance level, or data in data sets having a same importance level but different types;
mapping an importance level of a data set or an importance level of data to a priority of a data tunnel;
when a data set A is dependent on a data set B and the data set A and the data set B are mapped to different data tunnels, setting a priority of a data tunnel of the data set A to be higher than that of a data tunnel of the data set B; or
when data A is dependent on data B and the data A and the data B are mapped to different data tunnels, setting a priority of a data tunnel of the data A to be higher than that of a data tunnel of the data B, wherein the data A and the data B are in a same data set.
However, Regnier teaches (Title, Method For Providing Prioritized Data Movement Between Endpoints Connected By Multiple Logical Channels)
wherein the performing a data tunnel mapping operation comprises at least one of the following (Due to alternative language “at least one of” in the claim examiner addresses one limitation only):
mapping data that meets at least one of the following to different data tunnels: data in different data sets, data in different types of data sets, data in data sets having different importance levels, different types of data, data having different importance levels, different types of data in a same data set, or data having different importance levels data in a same data set;
mapping data that meets at least one of the following to a same data tunnel: data in a same data set, data in a same type of data set, data in data sets having a same importance level, a same type of data, data having a same importance level, or data in data sets having a same importance level but different types;
mapping an importance level of a data set or an importance level of data to a priority of a data tunnel (Fig.5 and [0026], multiple data channels, each assigned a different priority level. This allows for prioritized data to be mapped onto prioritized data channels, and for data of differing priorities to move independently across different data channels between endpoints. Here, the data of differing priorities/ importance level are mapped to corresponding priority level of data channel/ data tunnel);
when a data set A is dependent on a data set B and the data set A and the data set B are mapped to different data tunnels, setting a priority of a data tunnel of the data set A to be higher than that of a data tunnel of the data set B; or
when data A is dependent on data B and the data A and the data B are mapped to different data tunnels, setting a priority of a data tunnel of the data A to be higher than that of a data tunnel of the data B, wherein the data A and the data B are in a same data set.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Giaretta as mentioned in claim 15 and further incorporate the teaching of Regnier. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a unique cost-effective and performance-efficient solution for prioritized data movement between endpoints connected by multiple logical channels in a data network (Regnier, [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan (Pub. No. US 2023/0116578 A1) – “DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS” discloses method and apparatus for receipt by a communication apparatus of first indication information from a second communication apparatus indicating whether a first service of a terminal device is a service of a first type. The communication apparatus obtains characteristic information of the first service based on the first indication information, determines a mapping relationship between a packet filter set of the first service and a quality of service QoS flow based on the characteristic information, and sends the mapping relationship to a third communication apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWNAK ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8009. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on 571-272-2832. 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.
/ROWNAK ISLAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474