DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on September 25th 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/14/25, 10/31/25 and 11/19/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 9/25/25, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 5 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, 18-19 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant seems to acknowledge that Ott discloses packet size information in a packet header (pg. 7), and seems to acknowledge that Ott’s header correlation field is for sequence information for associated packets with flows (pg. 8). Despite this, applicant concludes Ott does not disclose the amended features. This is not persuasive. Ott clearly discloses using sequence numbers in a header field to correlate packets with flows (see Section III C and D). Therefore, Ott reads on the amended feature of traffic correlation information being associated with at least one of a sequence number of the application data unit, as now recited by claims 1, 7 and 18-19.
A new ground of rejection is made for claims 4 and 10 in response to the amendment. See the detailed rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott et al. “Aggregate Congestion Control for Distributed Multimedia Applications” INFOCOM 2004, IEEE (cited in IDS filed on 4/28/25).
Regarding claim 1, Ott discloses a communication method for use in a first network node (Section I, Fig. 1):
transmitting, to a second … network node, a packet in a quality of service (QoS) flow associated with an application data unit (endpoints transmit packets with QoS flow and associated application data – see Figs. 2 and 3, Section III),
wherein a packet header of the packet comprises traffic correlation information associated with the application data unit (headers contains correlation info – Section III),
wherein the traffic correlation information comprises information associated with at least one of: a sequence number of the application data unit (sequence number is used for traffic correlation – see Section III.C and D).
Ott does not explicitly disclose a “wireless” communication method, or “wireless” network nodes. However, it explicitly suggests this (future work uses wireless endpoints - Section VII). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nodes of Ott to be “wireless” based on the explicit teaching/suggestion found in Ott itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefits that wireless communication provides.
Regarding claim 2, Ott discloses the traffic correlation information comprises a traffic correlation identifier of the application data unit (identifier – Section III.C).
Regarding claim 3, Ott discloses the traffic correlation identifier indicates at least one of: an application identifier associated with the application to which the packet belongs (application identifier – Section III).
Regarding claim 5, Ott discloses the first wireless network node is one of a user plane function and a radio access network node (under the BRI, the user plane function is an intermediate node that forwards or transmits user data between networks, the aggregation points taught by Ott read on this function under this interpretation; furthermore, even if amended to be a user plane function as known in wireless architecture, e.g. 5G, such a feature is a core feature of 5G and well-known in the art – see para 5 of Chou, discussed below).
Regarding claim 7, it is a method claim that corresponds to the previous method claim of claim 1, but is directed to the second node. The corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons (see Ott Section III). Ott further discloses performing a correlation action on the packet based on the traffic correlation information (use correlation information to implement algorithm/dynamic configuration – Section III).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 11, they directly correspond to previously presented claims 2-3 and 5; thus they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Ott discloses associating the packet with the application data unit based on the traffic correlation information (packet is associated with flow - Section III).
Regarding claim 14, Ott discloses applying a correlation policy associated with the application data unit based on the traffic correlation information (apply policy to flow – Section III).
Regarding claim 15, Ott discloses acquiring at least one measurement result of the application data unit based on the traffic correlation information (measure RTT – Section III).
Regarding claim 16, Ott discloses the at least one measurement comprises at least one of: average packet delay, average packet loss rate (delay and average loss rate - see Section III.D).
Regarding claim 17, Ott discloses reporting at least one QoS event associated with the application data unit (report losses – Section III.D).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, they are device claims that correspond to the method of claims 1 and 7 respectively. Ott discloses the “nodes” to perform the method (see Figs. 2-3, Section III). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott in view of Leon Calvo et al. US 2023/0082166 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Ott does not explicitly disclose the traffic correlation information further comprises: a duplication number of the application data unit. But this is taught by Leon Calvo as a method for duplicating packets to communicate over multiple links, wherein the packet is modified to add a duplication identifier to the header (abstract, paragraphs 5 and 34, Figs. 2, 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ott with the duplication number/identifier taught by Leon Calvo for the purpose of correlating network traffic. Leon Calvo suggests that by duplicating packets, data can be transmitted over multiple links which makes the communication more robust and improves reliability (see paragraphs 5-6 and 31).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ott in view of Chou et al. US 2022/0086072 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Ott does not explicitly disclose the packet is a general packet radio service tunneling protocol user plane (GTP-U) and the packet header is a GTP-U header but this is taught by Chou as a wireless communication system (abstract), that supports GTP-U (paragraphs 196-198, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ott with the GTP-U taught by Chou. Chou teaches (paragraph 89) that GTP-U works on top of UDP/IP (which is what Ott uses), and Chou discloses the benefits of GTP-U (see paragraph 198).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu US 2021/0127271 A1 discloses a wireless system with UPF (abstract) and correlating QoS flows (paragraphs 14, 179).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights