DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the Application filed on 11/15/2023 and the preliminary amendment filed on the same date, in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 7, 8 are recited in independent form. The present Application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/019124 with a filing date of 05/20/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is only limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked and is otherwise given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner has not identified any language which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, therefore the limitations will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, without importing limitations for the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 7 ,8 recite in the first instance the limitation "the plurality of users" and later after reciting “the plurality of users” recite “a plurality of users”. The are two issues with the claims, first, the insufficient antecedent basis which comes before the first use of the term ‘the plurality of users’ in the claim; second, the claims set forth first "the plurality of users" and then “a plurality of users” wherein the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim if each plurality of users is the same plurality of users or separate and distinct plurality of users due to using first "the plurality of users" and then “a plurality of users”. Claims 2-6, 9-20 depend from claims 1, 7, 8 and provide no limitations which overcome the rejection of the limitations inherited from the parent claim, and are therefore similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-2023023222 to Puente Pestana et al (hereinafter d1) in view of US-20220014477 to Ganesan et al (hereafter d2).
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitations “A band estimation device comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising:” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 1) including various devices which are fairly characterized as band estimation device (see d1 Figs. 3, 11) wherein the devices in the system are controlled by a method (see d1 Figs. 7, 9) embodied as a computer readable medium (see d1 para. 0123-0124) containing program instructions which cause a device (i.e. computer) to execute the function of the method; as to the limitation “acquiring traffic information regarding traffic from a communication device; classifying the acquired traffic information for each of a plurality of services; and estimating band of a link for each of the services on a basis of the traffic information for each of the services and predetermined maximum band information regarding a predetermined maximum band of each of the plurality of users, wherein the link connects communication devices of a plurality of users, and the link accommodates traffic flows caused by the plurality of services” d1 discloses functionality that is reflective of obtaining (i.e. acquiring) information reflective of traffic (i.e. traffic information) (see d1 Fig. 5, para. 0061-0065); classification of traffic based on at least service type (see d1 Fig. 6 para. 0080) and QoE estimation (i.e. estimating a band) based on traffic, service type in order to accommodate all devices seeking service (see d1 para. 0039-0042) incorporating a predetermined maximum (see d1 para. 0075, 0086);
d1 discloses allocation based on QoE, which may not directly align with the ‘band’ required by the claims, however the Examiner contends QoE is reflective of band under a BRI, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which also addresses all the limitations noted above which are met by d1 and further discloses teachings relative to the limitation “band”, wherein d1 and d2 meet all the limitations in question, possibly alone, but certainly in combination. Wherein d2, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d2 para. 0003), suggests allocation of bandwidth flow (i.e. band) in an explicit manner including acquiring traffic information (see d2 Fig. 9, 910, para. 0074); classifying information reflective of traffic based on type of service (see d2 Fig. 9, 930, para. 0076-0084); and allocating (i.e. estimating) band based on traffic, service type (see d2 Fig. 9, 940, para. 0085-0088) incorporating at least a predetermined max band (see d2 para. 0070, 0071, 0077, 0109).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the estimating further comprises: creating a learning model by machine learning using the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users and traffic information of each of the plurality of services as learning data, and inputting the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users to the learning model to estimate a band of a link for each of the services” d1 in view of d2 suggests use of ML (see d1 para. 0027) which implements a model incorporating the max band information for band allocation or estimation (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 2, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each of the plurality of services on a basis of traffic information of each of the plurality of services, wherein the estimating further comprises creating the learning model by machine learning using, as learning data, the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users, the traffic information of each of the plurality of services, and the periodicity” d1 in view of d2 suggests procedure equivalent to determining (i.e. extracting) periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) which is utilized by the ML model based on the information and traffic, and max band (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 3, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises: creating a plurality of learning models having different parameters regarding learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models” d1 in view of d2 suggests periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) as well as a plurality of learning models (see d1 para. 0041, 00858, 0090) employing the different parameters for learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 1, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each service of the plurality of services on a basis of past traffic information of each of the plurality of services; and determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises estimating the band of the link by using an algorithm according to the feature of the periodicity among a plurality of algorithms for estimating the band of the link” d1 in view of d2 suggests analyzing past traffic and determining a feature thereof (see d1 para. 0041-0042, 0051, 0086) and use of an algorithm incorporating features determined for estimating the band of a link (see d2 para. 0039, 0055, 0063, 0092, 0096-0098), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 4, further comprising: comparing the estimated band of the link of a service with an actually necessary band of the link in the service, wherein the estimating further comprises changing a parameter of an algorithm or a model used for estimation of the band of the link according to a result of comparison” d1 in view of d2 suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, as to the limitation “The band estimation device according to claim 5, further comprising: comparing the estimated band of the link of a service with an actually necessary band of the link in the service, wherein the estimating further comprises changing a parameter of an algorithm or a model used for estimation of the band of the link according to a result of comparison” d1 in view of d2 suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114) for iterative (i.e. changing a parameter) performance (see d1 para. 0041-0042), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, as to the limitations “A method for estimating a band of a link comprising:” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 1) including various devices which are fairly characterized as band estimation device (see d1 Figs. 3, 11) wherein the devices in the system are controlled by a method (see d1 Figs. 7, 9) embodied as a computer readable medium (see d1 para. 0123-0124) containing program instructions which cause a device (i.e. computer) to execute the function of the method;
as to the limitation “acquiring traffic information regarding the traffic from a communication device; classifying the acquired traffic information for each of the services; and estimating a band of the link for each of the services on a basis of the traffic information for each of the services and predetermined maximum band information regarding a predetermined maximum band of each of the plurality of users, wherein the link connects communication devices of a plurality of users, and the link accommodates traffic flows caused by the plurality of services” d1 discloses functionality that is reflective of obtaining (i.e. acquiring) information reflective of traffic (i.e. traffic information) (see d1 Fig. 5, para. 0061-0065); classification of traffic based on at least service type (see d1 Fig. 6 para. 0080) and QoE estimation (i.e. estimating a band) based on traffic, service type in order to accommodate all devices seeking service (see d1 para. 0039-0042) incorporating a predetermined maximum (see d1 para. 0075, 0086);
d1 discloses allocation based on QoE, which may not directly align with the ‘band’ required by the claims, however the Examiner contends QoE is reflective of band under a BRI, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which also addresses all the limitations noted above which are met by d1 and further discloses teachings relative to the limitation “band”, wherein d1 and d2 meet all the limitations in question, possibly alone, but certainly in combination. Wherein d2, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d2 para. 0003), suggests allocation of bandwidth flow (i.e. band) in an explicit manner including acquiring traffic information (see d2 Fig. 9, 910, para. 0074); classifying information reflective of traffic based on type of service (see d2 Fig. 9, 930, para. 0076-0084); and allocating (i.e. estimating) band based on traffic, service type (see d2 Fig. 9, 940, para. 0085-0088) incorporating at least a predetermined max band (see d2 para. 0070, 0071, 0077, 0109).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 7, wherein the estimating further comprises creating a learning model by machine learning using the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users and traffic information of each of the plurality of services as learning data, and inputting the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users to the learning model to estimate a band of a link for each of the services” d1 in view of d2 suggests use of ML (see d1 para. 0027) which implements a model incorporating the max band information for band allocation or estimation (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 10, further comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each of the plurality of services on a basis of traffic information of each of the plurality of services, wherein the estimating further comprises creating the learning model by machine learning using, as learning data, the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users, the traffic information of each of the plurality of services, and the periodicity” d1 in view of d2 suggests procedure equivalent to determining (i.e. extracting) periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) which is utilized by the ML model based on the information and traffic, and max band (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 11, further comprising: determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises: creating a plurality of learning models having different parameters regarding learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models” d1 in view of d2 suggests periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) as well as a plurality of learning models (see d1 para. 0041, 00858, 0090) employing the different parameters for learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 7, further comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each of the plurality of services on a basis of past traffic information of each of the plurality of services; and determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises estimating the band by using an algorithm according to the feature of the periodicity among a plurality of algorithms for estimating the band” d1 in view of d2 suggests analyzing past traffic and determining a feature thereof (see d1 para. 0041-0042, 0051, 0086) and use of an algorithm incorporating features determined for estimating the band of a link (see d2 para. 0039, 0055, 0063, 0092, 0096-0098), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 12, further comprising: comparing a band of a service with an actually necessary band in the service, wherein the estimating further comprises changing a parameter of an algorithm or a model used for estimation of the band of the link according to a result of comparison” d1 in view of d2 suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, as to the limitation “The method according to claim 13, further comprising: comparing a band of a service with an actually necessary band in the service, wherein the estimating further comprises changing a parameter of an algorithm or a model used for estimation of the band of the link according to a result of comparison” d1 in view of d2 suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114) for iterative (i.e. changing a parameter) performance (see d1 para. 0041-0042), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as to the limitations “A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer-executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute operations comprising:” d1 discloses a system (see d1 Fig. 1) including various devices which are fairly characterized as band estimation device (see d1 Figs. 3, 11) wherein the devices in the system are controlled by a method (see d1 Figs. 7, 9) embodied as a computer readable medium (see d1 para. 0123-0124) containing program instructions which cause a device (i.e. computer) to execute the function of the method;
as to the limitation “acquiring traffic information regarding the traffic from a communication device; classifying the acquired traffic information for each of a plurality of services; and estimating a band of a link for each of the services on a basis of the traffic information for each of the services and predetermined maximum band information regarding a predetermined maximum band of each of the plurality of users, wherein the link connects communication devices of a plurality of users, and the link accommodates traffic flows caused by the plurality of services” d1 discloses functionality that is reflective of obtaining (i.e. acquiring) information reflective of traffic (i.e. traffic information) (see d1 Fig. 5, para. 0061-0065); classification of traffic based on at least service type (see d1 Fig. 6 para. 0080) and QoE estimation (i.e. estimating a band) based on traffic, service type in order to accommodate all devices seeking service (see d1 para. 0039-0042) incorporating a predetermined maximum (see d1 para. 0075, 0086);
d1 discloses allocation based on QoE, which may not directly align with the ‘band’ required by the claims, however the Examiner contends QoE is reflective of band under a BRI, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which also addresses all the limitations noted above which are met by d1 and further discloses teachings relative to the limitation “band”, wherein d1 and d2 meet all the limitations in question, possibly alone, but certainly in combination. Wherein d2, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication (see d2 para. 0003), suggests allocation of bandwidth flow (i.e. band) in an explicit manner including acquiring traffic information (see d2 Fig. 9, 910, para. 0074); classifying information reflective of traffic based on type of service (see d2 Fig. 9, 930, para. 0076-0084); and allocating (i.e. estimating) band based on traffic, service type (see d2 Fig. 9, 940, para. 0085-0088) incorporating at least a predetermined max band (see d2 para. 0070, 0071, 0077, 0109).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, as to the limitation “The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 8, wherein the estimating further comprises creating a learning model by machine learning using the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users and traffic information of each of the plurality of services as learning data, and inputting the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users to the learning model to estimate a band of a link for each of the services” d1 in view of d2 suggests use of ML (see d1 para. 0027) which implements a model incorporating the max band information for band allocation or estimation (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, as to the limitation “The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 16, the computer-executable program instructions when executed further causing the computer to execute operations comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each of the plurality of services on a basis of traffic information of each of the plurality of services, wherein the estimating further comprises creating the learning model by machine learning using, as learning data, the predetermined maximum band information of each of the plurality of users, the traffic information of each of the plurality of services, and the periodicity” d1 in view of d2 suggests procedure equivalent to determining (i.e. extracting) periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) which is utilized by the ML model based on the information and traffic, and max band (see d1 para. 0040-0043, 0050, 0080, 0086, 0095-0096), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, as to the limitation “The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 17, the computer-executable program instructions when executed further causing the computer to execute operations comprising: determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises: creating a plurality of learning models having different parameters regarding learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models” d1 in view of d2 suggests periodicity information associated with a service (see d1 para. 0080-0084) as well as a plurality of learning models (see d1 para. 0041, 00858, 0090) employing the different parameters for learning, and estimating the band of the link using a learning model corresponding to the feature of the periodicity determined by the feature determination unit among the plurality of learning models, which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, as to the limitation “The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 8, the computer-executable program instructions when executed further causing the computer to execute operations comprising: extracting periodicity of traffic caused by each of the plurality of services on a basis of past traffic information of each of the plurality of services; and determining a feature of the periodicity, wherein the estimating further comprises estimating the band by using an algorithm according to the feature of the periodicity among a plurality of algorithms for estimating the band” d1 in view of d2 suggests analyzing past traffic and determining a feature thereof (see d1 para. 0041-0042, 0051, 0086) and use of an algorithm incorporating features determined for estimating the band of a link (see d2 para. 0039, 0055, 0063, 0092, 0096-0098), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, as to the limitation The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 18, the computer-executable program instructions when executed further causing the computer to execute operations comprising: comparing a band of a service with an actually necessary band in the service, wherein the estimating further comprises changing a parameter of an algorithm or a model used for estimation of the band of the link according to a result of comparison” d1 in view of d2 discloses The computer-readable non-transitory recording medium according to claim 18 as set forth above, d1 in view of d2 also suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114), d1 in view of d2 also suggests using the necessary provision in reference to a maximum for determining allocation of resources (see d1 para. 0080, 0084-0085, 0102, 0114) for iterative (i.e. changing a parameter) performance (see d1 para. 0041-0042), which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing. which renders the limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing.
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2, it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (allocation) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve performance (see d2 para. 0063, 0110). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved performance. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (allocation) for similar purposes (enhanced performance) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferen