DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by White (2020/0,053,018).
For claims 1, 18, White teaches a method, and a device (Fig 2a; Para 53; CM in gateway together with CMTS device), comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (Fig 5; CMTS scheduler); and a flow scheduling logic (Para 85; CM works with CMTS), (abstract, background, summary and claims) configured to:
receive an upstream data flow including one or more upstream data packets (Para 91; Low latency upstream service flow);
determine whether an upstream data packet of the one or more upstream data packets includes a congestion indicator (Para 103; L4S = L4 traffic is identified by the ECN field = congestion indicator);
classify the upstream data flow as a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow if the upstream data packet includes the congestion indicator (Fig 5; classifier in CM identifies LL upstream packets by the ECN mark); and
enqueue the upstream data flow in an L4S queue associated with the L4S data flow (Fig. 5; LL packets enqueued to the LL-queue).
For claim 2, White teaches that the upstream data flow is received from an L4S enabled wireless device (Fig. 2a; Wi-Fi Terminal sending data to CM).
For claim 3, White teaches wherein the congestion indicator is an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator including at least one of: an ECN Capable Transport (ECT) value (N/A) or a Congestion Experienced (CE) value (Para 103, ECN mark is CE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-9, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claims 1, 18 above, and further in view of Viger et al. (2025/0,071,602).
For claim 4, White does not expressly disclose the limitations. Viger teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) wherein the flow scheduling logic is further configured to transmit an unsolicited dynamic Stream Classification Service (SCS) response frame to the L4S enabled wireless device (Paras 158-160). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Viger in order to provide improvements to low latency handling (Para 5).
For claim 5, Viger teaches wherein the flow scheduling logic is further configured to receive an SCS request frame including one or more flow characteristics associated with the upstream data flow from the L4S enabled wireless device in response to the unsolicited dynamic SCS response frame (Paras 152-154).
For claim 6, Viger teaches wherein the SCS request frame comprises an L4S indicator associated with the upstream data flow (Para 149).
For claims 7, 19, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to schedule transmission of the upstream data flow (Paras 123, 167; use request for uplink LL traffic for scheduling) based on at least one of: the one or more flow characteristics or the L4S indicator associated with the upstream data flow (Para 104; TID is low latency indicator in SCS request for uplink LL traffic).
For claim 8, White teaches some relevant background (Fig 6) but does not expressly disclose the limitations. Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
receive a downstream data flow (Para 124; downlink); and
detect a second congestion indicator in the downstream data flow associated with a second upstream data flow (Para 104, 147).
For claims 9, 20, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
receive the second upstream data flow (Para 123);
classify the second upstream data flow as a second L4S data flow (Para 125); and
enqueue the second upstream data flow in a second L4S queue associated with the second L4S data flow (Paras 102-107).
For claim 10, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to transmit a Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) policy request to a wireless device (Paras 102, 128-129).
For claim 11, Viger teaches that the wireless device marks the upstream data flow as the L4S data flow in response to the DSCP policy request (Paras 128-129).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger as applied to claim 4 above, and White as applied to claim 1 above.
For claim 12, Viger teaches a device (Fig 4B; AP of the AP MLD), comprising: a processor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and a flow scheduling logic (abstract, background, summary and claims), configured to:
receive a Stream Classification Service (SCS) request indicative of a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (L4S) data flow associated with a wireless device (Paras 158-160; SCS request frame sent by wireless STA, SCS indicates flow direction and QoS characteristic representing low latency traffic); and
receive an upstream data flow including one or more upstream data packets associated with the SCS request (Para 149).
Viger does not expressly disclose the detect and classify steps. White teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes
identify a congestion indicator in an upstream data packet of the one or more upstream data packets (Para 103; L4S = L4 traffic is identified by the ECN field = congestion indicator); and
classify the upstream data flow as the L4S data flow based on the congestion indicator (Fig 5; classifier in CM identifies LL upstream packets by the ECN mark).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added White in order to provide improvements to the systems (background).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viger and White as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Eisen et al. (2023/0,127,299).
For claim 13, Eisen teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
determine compliance of the upstream data flow with one or more predefined network policies (Para 23; SCS message confirm); and
enqueue the upstream data flow in an L4S queue associated with the L4S data flow if the upstream data flow complies with the one or more predefined network policies (Paras 50-52; path change builds on earlier queuing prior art).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Eisen in order to provide improvements to scheduling of flows (background).
For claim 14, Eisen teaches wherein the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
decline the SCS request if the upstream data flow does not comply with the one or more predefined network policies s (Para 23; SCS message reject); and
classify the upstream data flow as a non-L4S data flow (Para 121).
For claim 15, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
receive a second SCS request from the wireless device for reception of a downstream L4S data flow (Para 104, 147); and
receive a downstream data flow associated with the wireless device (Para 124).
For claim 16, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to classify the downstream data flow as the downstream L4S data flow (Para 124).
For claim 17, Viger teaches that the flow scheduling logic is further configured to:
determine compliance of the downstream data flow with the one or more predefined network policies (Para 104, 147); and
classify the downstream data flow as a non-L4S data flow if the downstream data flow does not comply with the one or more predefined network policies (Para 104, 147).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights