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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 9/17/25 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12, 14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0041942 to Wallentin et al.
a. As per claim 1, Wallentin teaches a method comprising: receiving, at a current time and at a first networking equipment, network traffic over a network (See paragraph [0026]); identifying a portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic, based on an indication from an application service provider or an Internet service provider (ISP) ( See paragraph [0031 and 0044]); accessing a preferential network traffic data cap corresponding to a cumulative amount of data permitted to be used, during a predefined time period, for providing preferential network traffic over the network to the first networking equipment, wherein the predefined time period spans from a first prior time to a second future time, and wherein the first prior time is earlier than the current time and the second future time is later than the current time ( See paragraph [0033 and 0059]); determining a total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic to the first networking equipment (See paragraph [0033-0035]) ; determining that the total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic provided to the first networking equipment equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap ( See paragraph [0035 and 0054], the amount of data, with a certain priority to be sent from data transmitter 1, exceeds a threshold, ); and based on determining that the total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic to the first networking equipment equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap, causing identification of an action to be performed on the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic ( See paragraph [0054], the monitoring entity may receive traffic and/or outgoing traffic. At step 704, when the amount of received and/or outgoing traffic exceeds a threshold, a trigger (e.g., a ping, a message, etc.) may be sent to the scheduler).
b. As per claim 16, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Wallentin et al teaches wherein the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic is associated with a cellular network (See paragraph [0023-0024 and 0059]).
c. As per claim 17, Wallentin et al teaches a system comprising: a first networking equipment; and control circuitry configured to: receive, at a current time and at the first networking equipment, network traffic over a network; identify a portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic, based on an indication from an application service provider or an Internet service provider (ISP) (See paragraph [0031 and 0044]);
access a preferential network traffic data cap corresponding to a cumulative amount of data permitted to be used, during a predefined time period, for provided providing preferential network traffic over the network to the first networking equipment over a particular time period, wherein the predefined time period spans from a first prior time to a second future time, and wherein the first prior time is earlier than the current time and the second future time is later than the current time (See paragraph [0033-0035 and 0059]); determine a total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic to the first networking equipment ( See paragraph [0033-0035]); determine whether an that the total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic provided to the first networking equipment over the particular time period equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap( See paragraph [0035 and 0054], the amount of data, with a certain priority to be sent from data transmitter 1, exceeds a threshold, ); and based on determining that the total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic provided to the first networking equipment equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap, cause identification of an action to be performed on the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic ( See paragraph [0054], the monitoring entity may receive traffic and/or outgoing traffic. At step 704, when the amount of received and/or outgoing traffic exceeds a threshold, a trigger (e.g., a ping, a message, etc.) may be sent to the scheduler).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 2-3 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0041942 to Wallentin et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0366467 to Martin et al..
a. As per claims 2 and 18, Wallentin et al teaches transmitting an indication to the second networking equipment indicating that the total amount of data that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap, wherein the indication causes the second networking equipment to perform the identification of the action to be performed (See paragraph [0035 and 0054]). However, Wallentin et al fails to explicitly teaches wherein the first networking equipment is located at a particular location and provides a local area network (LAN) at the particular location, and second networking equipment is associated with providing a wide area network (WAN)
Martin et al teaches wherein the first networking equipment is located at a particular location and provides a local area network (LAN) at the particular location, and second networking equipment is associated with providing a wide area network (WAN) (See paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Martin et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to provide local and wide area connection.
b. As per claims 3 and 19, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Wallentin et al fails to explicitly wherein the first network equipment is associated with providing a wide area network (WAN), and the first network equipment causes the identification of the action to be performed.
Martin et al teaches wherein the first network equipment is associated with providing a wide area network (WAN), and the first network equipment causes the identification of the action to be performed (See paragraph [0102-0103], The network 156 can correspond to a WAN, such as the public internet or other WAN that is at least partially outside control of the site).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Martin et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to control data traffic and simplify optimization for communication sessions established between parties.
7. Claims 4-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0041942 to Wallentin et al. in view of U.S Publication No. 2005/0152378 to Bango et al.
a. As per claim 4, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martin et al fails to teach wherein identifying the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic comprises: determining whether data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP.
Bango et al teaches identifying the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic comprises: determining whether data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP (See paragraph [0191 and 0201]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bango et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to establish a priority for the data traffic.
b. As per claim 5, Martin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martin et al fails to teach wherein the portion of network traffic designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP is low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S)-capable (See paragraph [0056 and 0142]).
c. As per claim 6, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Wallentin et al teaches wherein determining the amount of preferential network traffic that has been used for providing preferential network traffic to the first networking equipment from the first prior time to the current time comprises determining an amount of at least one of network traffic designated as preferential by the application service provider or network traffic designated as preferential by the ISP provided to the first networking equipment from the first prior time to the current time (See paragraph [0035, 0044 and 0054]).
d. AS per claim 7, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Wallentin et al teaches wherein: the portion of the network traffic is designated as preferential by the application service provider (See paragraph [0044]) ; accessing the preferential network traffic data cap comprises accessing an application service provider preferential network traffic data cap corresponding to a cumulative amount of data permitted to be used, during the predefined time period, for network traffic designated as preferential by the application service provider (See paragraph [0033-0035]); and determining whether an that the total amount of preferential network traffic that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic provided to the first networking equipment equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap comprises determining whether the cumulative amount of application service provider network traffic designated as preferential provided to the first networking equipment from the first prior time to the current time equals or exceeds the application service provider preferential network traffic data cap (See paragraph [0033-0035 and 0054]).
e. As per claim 8, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Wallentin et al taches wherein: the portion of the network traffic is designated as preferential by the ISP (See paragraph [0044]); accessing the preferential network traffic data cap comprises accessing an ISP preferential network traffic data cap corresponding to a cumulative amount of data permitted to be used, during the predefined time period, for providing network traffic designated as preferential by the ISP (See paragraph [0033-0035]);
and determining that the total amount of preferential network traffic that has been used from the first prior time to the current time for providing preferential network traffic provided to the first networking equipment equals or exceeds the cumulative amount of data corresponding to the preferential network traffic data cap comprises determining whether the cumulative amount of ISP network traffic designated as preferential by the ISP provided to the first networking equipment from the first prior time to the current time equals or exceeds the ISP preferential network traffic data cap (See paragraph [0033-0035 and 0054]).
f. As per claim 20, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Wallentin et al fails to teach wherein the control circuitry is further configured to identify the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic by: determining whether data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP.
Bango et al teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to identify the portion of the network traffic that corresponds to preferential network traffic by: determining whether data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP (See paragraph [0191 and 0201]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bango et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to establish a priority for the data traffic.
8. Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0041942 to Wallentin et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2007/0165668 to Liu.
a. As per claim 12, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Martin et al teaches wherein: the portion of the network traffic is designated as preferential by the ISP (See paragraph [0033 and 0044]); However, Martin et al fails to teach maintaining the portion of the network traffic as preferential network traffic based on determining that an amount of current network traffic having bits indicative of the ISP designating the current network traffic as preferential is below a threshold.
Liu teaches maintaining the portion of the network traffic as preferential network traffic based on determining that an amount of current network traffic having bits indicative of the ISP designating the current network traffic as preferential is below a threshold (See paragraph [0005-0006], The communications system also includes a service provider or data network having a service provider traffic class identification. The data network receives the packet and determines the packet forwarding priority. Additionally, the data network associates the packet forwarding priority with the traffic class identification and writes a second set of bits into the first bit-set location of the packet).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to indicate a delivery priority that corresponds to the packet forwarding priority.
b. AS per claim 14, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martin et al fails to teach wherein determining whether the data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being preferential network traffic comprises: based on determining that the bits indicate that the portion of the network traffic is experiencing congestion, identifying a prior packet of the portion of the network traffic, and determining whether the prior packet of the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicating whether the portion of the network traffic was designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP.
Liu wherein determining whether the data associated with the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicative of the portion of the network traffic being preferential network traffic comprises: based on determining that the bits indicate that the portion of the network traffic is experiencing congestion, identifying a prior packet of the portion of the network traffic, and determining whether the prior packet of the portion of the network traffic comprises bits indicating whether the portion of the network traffic was designated as preferential by the application service provider or the ISP (See paragraph [0005-0006]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to indicate a delivery priority that corresponds to the packet forwarding priority (See abstract).
9. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0041942 to Wallentin et al. in view of U.S Publication No. 2005/0152378 to Bango et al as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S Publication 2017/0366467 to Martin et al.
a. As per claim 9, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Wallentin et al in view of Bango et al fails to teach wherein the first networking equipment is located at a particular location and provides a local area network (LAN) at the particular location, and at the least one bit is designated by the ISP as preferential based at least in part on input received from, or preferences indicated by, a user associated with first networking equipment.
Martin et al teaches wherein the first networking equipment is located at a particular location and provides a local area network (LAN) at the particular location (See paragraph [0027]), and at the least one bit is designated by the ISP as preferential based at least in part on input received from, or preferences indicated by, a user associated with first networking equipment (See paragraph [0023], making interactive media (e.g. voice, video, conferencing or other user defined applications) as high priority types of packets).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Martin et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to control data traffic and simplify optimization for communication sessions established between parties.
b. As per claim 10, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Wallentin et al fails to teach wherein: a first queue is provided to process preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment, and a second queue is provided to process non-preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment; and the identified action comprises modifying the bits to indicate that the portion of the network traffic is non-preferential network traffic, to cause the non-preferential network traffic to be transmitted via the second queue.
Martin et al teaches a first queue is provided to process preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment, and a second queue is provided to process non-preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment (See paragraph [0024], Packet prioritization and routing of data packets can be implemented for placing data packets in the appropriate priority queues implemented for each respective network connection).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Martin et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to control data traffic and simplify optimization for communication sessions established between parties. However, Wallentin et al in view of Martin et al fails to teach and the identified action comprises modifying the bits to indicate that the portion of the network traffic is non-preferential network traffic, to cause the non-preferential network traffic to be transmitted via the second queue.
Bango et al teaches the identified action comprises modifying the bits to indicate that the portion of the network traffic is non-preferential network traffic, to cause the non-preferential network traffic to be transmitted via the second queue (See paragraph [0191 and 0201]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Bango et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin in view of Martin et al in order to establish a priority for the data traffic.
c. As per claim 11, Wallentin et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Wallentin fails to teach wherein: a first queue is provided to process preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment, and a second queue is provided to process non-preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment; and the identified action comprises maintaining the portion of the network traffic as preferential network traffic, to cause the portion of the network traffic to be transmitted via the first queue.
Martin et al teach a first queue is provided to process preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment, and a second queue is provided to process non-preferential network traffic intended for or transmitted by the first networking equipment (See paragraph [0024], Packet prioritization and routing of data packets can be implemented for placing data packets in the appropriate priority queues implemented for each respective network connection); and the identified action comprises maintaining the portion of the network traffic as preferential network traffic, to cause the portion of the network traffic to be transmitted via the first queue (See paragraph [0050], the packet prioritization/routing block 58 thus can place data packets that are determined to be high priority, time-sensitive data in the high priority queue 60).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Martin et al in the claimed invention of Wallentin et al in order to control data traffic and simplify optimization for communication sessions established between parties
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444