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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 10 December 2024, 18 June 2025, 03 July 2025, 24 July 2025, 17 October 2025, 13 November 2025, and 05 February 2026, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 12 June 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 12 June 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 13, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haddad et al. (US 20260005973 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Haddad”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 8, Haddad discloses the method of claim 1.
Haddad further discloses wherein:
at least a first subset of the plurality of categories is associated with a respective device of the plurality of devices (¶45 & ¶48-49, Haddad discloses a first type of incoming packets where the ECN of the incoming packet indicates that the device is a scalable node 212 capable of sending L4S-type packets. Examiner correlates the type of traffic sent by a scalable node to “a first subset of the plurality of categories”. Examiner correlates a scalable device to “a respective device of the plurality of devices”); and
the user interface comprises a plurality of options respectively associated with the plurality of devices (¶29, Haddad discloses that the graphical user interface comprises QoS parameters of one or more data flows, or incoming packets, whether the one or more data flows are associated with end user devices), and
the particular category comprises a particular device (¶45 & ¶48-49, Haddad discloses that L4S-type packets indicate a scalable node 212 capable of sending L4S-type packets).
Regarding Claim 13, Haddad discloses the method of claim 1.
Haddad further discloses wherein at least one option, for which the input is received, is associated with whether the first queue or the second queue is to be used by the second networking equipment to process network traffic corresponding to the particular category at a particular time of day (¶32 & ¶41-43, Haddad discloses a specific time period, for which a QoS request is received, is associated with whether a dedicated queue at the UPF or other queues at the UPF is to be used by the UPF to process the packets during a specific time period).
Regarding Claim 14, Haddad discloses a system comprising:
a first networking equipment (¶28-33 & Fig. 1, Haddad discloses a base station 152);
control circuitry (¶93-95 & Fig. 6, Haddad discloses a network node comprising processor(s) 642) configured to:
provide, using the first networking equipment, a local area network (LAN) at a particular location (¶28-33 & Fig. 1, Haddad discloses providing, using a base station 152, a cellular network at a location. Examiner correlates a base station 152 to "a first networking equipment"), wherein the LAN is connected to a wide area network (WAN) associated with a second networking equipment (¶63 & Fig. 1, Haddad discloses that the cellular network is connected to an external data network (DN), or Internet, associated with a user plane function (UPF). Examiner correlates the UPF to "a second network equipment". Examiner correlates an external data network (DN), such as the Internet, as “a wide area network (WAN)”), and wherein each of a first queue for preferential network traffic and a second queue for non-preferential network traffic is provided at least in part by the second networking equipment (¶46-48 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses a first queue for Low Latency, low loss scalable throughput (L4S) packets and a second queue for classic packets);
detect network traffic of a plurality of devices connected to the LAN (¶48-51 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses detecting by receiving, by a classifier 242, packets where the packets are packets corresponding to scalable nodes and classic nodes), and assigning each portion of a plurality of portions of the network traffic to a category of a plurality of categories (¶48-51, Haddad discloses assigning, by a classifier 242, packets as either classic packets or L4S packets. Examiner corelates the combination of classic-type traffic/packets and L4S-type traffic/packets to “ a plurality of categories”);
receive, via a user interface, input identifying a particular category of the plurality of categories of network traffic (¶64 & Fig. 3 (302) & ¶79 & Fig. 5 (502), Haddad discloses receiving, via an end user device, a session optimization request (SOR), or QoS request, message where the SOR message identifies QoS parameters), wherein the received input causes network traffic corresponding to the particular category to be processed using the first queue instead of the second queue (¶64 & Fig. 3 (302) & ¶79 & Fig. 5 (502), Haddad discloses the SOR message causes packets to be processed using a second queue dedicated to one or more data flows instead of a first queue); and
based at least in part on detecting, at the first networking equipment, that a portion of subsequent network traffic associated with a request by a device of the plurality of devices connected to the LAN corresponds to the particular category, transmit instructions to the second networking equipment to process the portion of subsequent network traffic using the first queue instead of the second queue (¶78-81 & Fig. 5 (508) & ¶50, Haddad discloses transmitting, to a network node, a message to optimize one or more data flows where the message causes the network node to process the packets of the one or more data flows to enable a second queue instead of a first queue in response to detecting congestion in the network and in response to receiving a quality of service request for an end user).
Regarding Claim 15, Haddad discloses the system of claim 15.
Haddad further discloses wherein the first queue for the preferential network traffic is for low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) network traffic (¶46-48 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses a first queue for Low Latency, low loss scalable throughput (L4S) packets and a second queue for classic packets), and the second queue for the non-preferential network traffic is for non-L4S network traffic (¶46-48 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses a first queue for Low Latency, low loss scalable throughput (L4S) packets and a second queue for classic packets).
Regarding Claim 17, Haddad discloses the system of claim 15.
Haddad further discloses wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
based on receiving the input, updating a data field of a data structure to indicate that the particular category of the network traffic is to be processed using the first queue (¶46-53 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses updating, by the classifier, explicit congestion notification (ECN) bits to indicate how the incoming packet is to be processed based upon the type of packet, such as L4S or classic. Examiner correlates the ECN bits as “a data field of a data structure”); and
wherein the second networking equipment is configured to cause the portion of the subsequent network traffic corresponding to the particular category to be processed using the first queue by marking data associated with the portion of the subsequent network traffic with a codepoint (¶80-81 & Fig. 5 (506->508), Haddad discloses marking, by the UPF, ECN bits of packets in order to process the packets using a second queue and/or a first queue. Fig. 2, Haddad discloses a plurality of codepoints, or bit values in the ECN field, that are used to indicate how to process the packet).
Regarding Claim 18, Haddad discloses the system of claim 17.
Haddad further discloses wherein:
the particular category is a first category (¶48-51, Haddad discloses a category for classic packets and a category for L4S packets), and the plurality of categories of network traffic comprise the first category and a second category (¶48-51, Haddad discloses a plurality of categories including a category for classic packets and a category for L4S packets);
the user interface provides an option for the first category and the second category, and the received input identifies the first category and does not identify the second category (¶58, Haddad discloses that the QoS request, configured using a graphical user interface, is capable of indicating a classic queue and L4S queue); and
the control circuitry is further configured to cause the data structure to indicate that the second category was not identified in the received input (¶46-53 & Fig. 2, Haddad discloses updating, by the classifier, explicit congestion notification (ECN) bits to indicate how the incoming packet is to be processed),
wherein the instructions transmitted to the second networking equipment causes the second networking equipment to process a portion of subsequent network traffic, requested by a device of the plurality of devices connected to the LAN and corresponding to the second category, using the second queue (¶80-81 & Fig. 5 (506->508) & ¶79 & Fig. 5 (502), Haddad discloses that the QoS/SoR message causes the network node, or UPF, to start marking, by the UPF, ECN bits of packets in order to process the packets using a second queue and/or a first queue).
Regarding Claim 19, Haddad discloses the system of claim 15.
Haddad further discloses wherein:
at least a first subset of the plurality of categories is associated with a respective type of Internet application of a plurality of types of Internet applications (¶22-23, Haddad discloses that the L4S category of data flows is associated with an Internet service and also associated with specific applications from highly variable queuing delay and loss across the Internet); and
the user interface comprises a plurality of options respectively associated with the plurality of types of Internet applications (¶29-32, Haddad discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) may be used to generate a QoS request where the QoS request is capable of referring to one or more data flows of either the L4S-type or the classic type), and
the particular category comprises a particular type of Internet application (¶22-23, Haddad discloses that the L4S category of data flows is associated with an Internet service and also associated with specific applications from highly variable queuing delay and loss across the Internet).
Regarding Claim 20, Haddad discloses the system of claim 19.
Haddad further discloses wherein:
at least a second subset of the plurality of categories is associated with a respective type of device of the plurality of devices (¶45 & ¶48-49, Haddad discloses a first type of incoming packets where the ECN of the incoming packet indicates that the device is a scalable node 212 capable of sending L4S-type packets);
the control circuitry is further configured to receive input indicating one or more devices of the plurality of devices (¶64 & Fig. 3 (302) & ¶79 & Fig. 5 (502), Haddad discloses receiving, via an end user device, a session optimization request (SOR) message or quality of service (QoS) request where the SOR message/QoS request identifies QoS parameters. Here, the indicated QoS parameter may be identifying information of one or more data flows corresponding to L4S traffic, which, in turn, would identify a scalable node 212); and
the received input of the one or more devices causes the second networking equipment to process the portion of the subsequent network traffic, for the particular type of Internet application and that is requested by the one or more devices, using the first queue (¶64 & Fig. 3 (302) & ¶79 & Fig. 5 (502), Haddad discloses the SOR message, or the QoS request, causes packets to be processed using a first queue instead of a second queue).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad in view of Haddad in view of Jaya et al. (US 10448268 B1; hereinafter referred to “Jaya”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 16, Haddad discloses a system of claim 15.
However, Haddad does not disclose wherein the instructions comprise a policy or a rule related to processing the portion of network traffic using the first queue, and the control circuitry is further configured to:detect, using the first networking equipment, that a network flow of the subsequent portion of network traffic corresponding to the particular category has ended; and transmit instructions to the second networking equipment to cause the second networking equipment to remove the policy or rule having been associated with the previously active particular network flow processed using the first queue.
Jaya, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions comprise a policy or a rule related to processing the portion of network traffic using the first queue (13:33-48 & 22:13-23, Jaya discloses that the flow restoration information corresponds to data that may be stored in a queue), and
the control circuitry is further configured to:
detect, using the first networking equipment, that a network flow of the subsequent portion of network traffic corresponding to the particular category has ended (12:42-65, Jaya discloses detecting that a flow may be terminated or deleted upon reception of a TCP FIN or a TCP RST in the case of TCP traffic or due to a flow idle timeout); and
transmit instructions to the second networking equipment to cause the second networking equipment to remove the policy or rule having been associated with the previously active particular network flow processed using the first queue (13:33-48, Jaya discloses transmitting a PFCP Session Report request message where the PFCP Session Report request causes a control-plane element to detect flow restoration information for the flow from memory).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haddad by requiring that the instructions comprise a policy or a rule related to processing the portion of network traffic using the first queue, and the control circuitry is further configured to: detect, using the first networking equipment, that a network flow of the subsequent portion of network traffic corresponding to the particular category has ended; and transmit instructions to the second networking equipment to cause the second networking equipment to remove the policy or rule having been associated with the previously active particular network flow processed using the first queue as taught by Jaya because the quality of experience for the subscriber is improved by mitigating under - charging or over charging of the subscriber (Jaya, 2:1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights