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 .
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 07/22/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 3, 6, 29, the cancellation of claims 7 – 8, 30, and the submission of new claims 31 – 33.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please delete “Method Embodiment” (line 1, before 31). Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 - 6, 9 – 11, 13 – 16, 19 – 21, 23 - 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2025/0202827; hereinafter Henry) in view of Gupta et al (US 2025/0211536; hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 1, Henry discloses a method of operating an access point (AP), the method comprising:
receiving at an access point a Stream Classification Service with Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (SCS w/L4S) request frame from a first station (STA) (paragraphs [0011], [0018]; Henry discloses that 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 LAS enabled wireless device in response to the unsolicited dynamic SCS response frame), the SCS w/L4S request frame including an L4S descriptor element that includes L4S descriptor information (paragraphs [0009], paragraphs [0041], [0044 – 0045]; Henry discloses that the AP may parse the data packets to determine whether any data packet includes the congestion indicator. Upon detecting the congestion indicator in one of the data packets, the AP can treat the data flow as the L4S data flow. In some embodiments, the congestion indicator may be an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator. In some more embodiments, the ECN indicator can be an ECN Capable Transport (ECT) value or a Congestion Experienced (CE) value, for example. In certain embodiments, the ECT value of ECT (1) may be classified as LAS, for example.), said SCS w/L4S request frame requesting that the access point create an L4S classifier filter used to identify Media Access Control (MAC) Service Data Units (MSDUs) directed to the first STA which are to be treated as L4S data ( paragraph [0065]; Henry discloses that the wireless device 210 can transmit the augmented SCS request frame to the AP 220. The augmented SCS request frame may be indicative of a request that the upstream data flow initiated by the wireless device 210 be classified as L4S) and given transmission priority over regular (non-L4S) data (paragraphs [0004], [0010], [0023]; Henry discloses that For implementing L4S, a dual queue architecture is utilized. In that, LAS traffic is maintained in a separate shallow queue. Some conventional systems also utilize a conditional priority scheduler to assign higher priority to the LAS traffic.) and designate a transmission queue (buffer) as an L4S buffer (paragraph [0101]; Henry discloses the process 900 can enqueue the downstream data flow in the L4S queue (block 950));
operating the access point to create an L4S classifier filter corresponding to the first STA said L4S classifier filter distinguishing between MSDUs which communicate L4S data and MSDUs which communicate non L4S data (paragraphs [0102]; Henry discloses that the process 900 may propose the alternative classification for the conflicting downstream data flow. In more embodiments, the process 900 can accept the conflicting downstream data flow but with a non-L4S treatment, thereby enqueuing the conflicting downstream data flow in the classic queue. In some more embodiments, the process 900 may prioritize other types of data flows over the conflicting downstream data flow. In numerous embodiments, the process 900 can propose alternative flow characteristics, such as but not limited to adjusting the MSDU size or the data rate, etc. for example, for the downstream data flow to quality for the LAS treatment.);
operating the access point to use the classifier filter to determine if an MSDU directed to the first station communicates L4S data or communicates non-L4S data (paragraphs [0043], [0095]; Henry discloses that the AP can propose alternative flow characteristics, such as but not limited to adjusting a Maximum Service Data Unit (MSDU) size or the data rate, for example, for the data flow to quality for the LAS treatment. In still many embodiments, the AP may dynamically reclassify the data flow and/or may dynamically propose the alternative flow characteristics when the AP anticipates congestion, faces congestion, or when there are scheduling issues); and
storing the MSDU in a transmission queue corresponding to the type of data being communicated by the MSDU (paragraphs [0024], [0043 – 0044]; Henry discloses that the AP may decline the SCS request. In some more embodiments, instead of declining the request, the AP may propose an alternative classification for the conflicting L4S data flow. In additional embodiments, the AP can accept the conflicting L4S data flow but with a non-LAS treatment, thereby enqueuing the conflicting L4S data flow in a classic queue). Claim 10 adds the limitations of a wireless receiver; a storage device; and a processor (see figs. 4 and 10).
Henry discloses all the limitations, except for showing that the L4S descriptor information including an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) threshold.
Gupta, in an analogous art, shows the idea of the L4S descriptor information including an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) threshold (paragraphs [0049], [0055], [0075]; Gupta discloses that the ECN classifier 108 can be further configured to store the L4S video data packets in the LAS queue 114A and the non-L4S video data packets in the non-LAS/classic queue 114B. In yet various embodiments, the access point 104 may determine a count of the L4S video data packets in the L4S queue 114A. In yet more embodiments, the access point 104 can determine a first threshold count associated with the LAS queue 114A. The access point 104 may determine the first threshold count, for example, based on the priority of the video data packets, QoS parameters of the video data packets, etc. The access point 104 can modify the first threshold count, for example, based on network conditions, network demand, QoS requirements, etc).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Henry by showing that the L4S descriptor information including an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) threshold as evidenced by Gupta for the purpose of providing high throughput and low latency for the wireless communication networks; thereby preventing dropped packets.
Regarding claim 2, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
communicating, from the AP to the first STA, an SCS w/L4S response frame, said SCS w/L4S response frame indicating creation of the L4S classifier filter requested by the first STA (Henry: paragraphs [0025], [0065]; Henry discloses that the AP 220 may transmit an SCS response to the wireless device 210. As shown in step 3 in FIG. 2, the AP 220 can determine whether the upstream data flow requested by the wireless device 210 is LAS. Thereafter, the AP 220 may provide the optimized L4S communication channel to the wireless device 210 for transmitting the upstream LAS data flow based on the QoS parameters specified in the SCS request).
Regarding claim 3, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the L4S descriptor element further includes a first STA specified loss tolerance to be applied by the access point to the transmission of identified L4S traffic (Henry: paragraphs [0007], [0018], [0024], [0040]; Henry discloses that an upstream data flow including one or more upstream data packets from a wireless device, determining whether an upstream data packet of the one or more upstream data packets includes a congestion indicator, classifying the upstream data flow as a Low Latency Low Loss Scalable throughput (LAS) data flow if the upstream data packet includes the congestion indicator, and enqueuing the upstream data flow in an LAS queue associated with the L4S data flow).
Regarding claim 5, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 1, wherein operating the access point to use the classifier filter to determine if an MSDU directed to the first station communicates L4S data or communicates non-L4S data determines that the MSDU is L4S data (paragraph [0066]); and
wherein storing the MSDU in a transmission queue corresponding to the type of data being communicated by the MSDU includes storing the MSDU in a L4S data buffer (paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Henry discloses all the limitations in claim 5, but fails to specifically disclose that wherein said ECN threshold is an L4S data buffer threshold, the method further comprising:
checking if the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds the ECN threshold included in the SCS w/L4S request frame received from the first STA; and in response to determining that the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds the ECN threshold, setting a congestion experienced (CE) codepoint (ECN = 11) in the MSDU prior to communicating the MSDU to the first station.
Gupta, in an analogous art, discloses that wherein said ECN threshold is an L4S data buffer threshold, the method further comprising:
checking if the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds the ECN threshold included in the SCS w/L4S request frame received from the first STA (paragraphs [0021], [0051], [0150], [0081]; Gupta discloses that the access point may detect the congestion based on the count of the upstream data packets exceeding the threshold count. In numerous additional embodiments, the access point may detect the congestion associated with the upstream LAS data flow at an egress path from the access point to the destination server); and
in response to determining that the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds the ECN threshold (paragraph [0081]; Gupta discloses that the access point 220 can determine a threshold count associated with the queue. The access point 220 may compare the count of the downstream LAS data packets in the queue with a threshold count. The access point 220 can detect the congestion when the count of the downstream L4S data packets in the queue exceeds the threshold count. At step (2), the access point 220 may then transmit an indication of the detected congestion to the wireless device 210 that is a destination of the downstream L4S data packets ), setting a congestion experienced (CE) codepoint (ECN = 11) in the MSDU prior to communicating the MSDU to the first station (paragraphs [0081], [0106], [0108 – 0110]; Gupta discloses that the MPDU may be a management frame, a control frame, or a data frame. Since the downstream LAS data packets which experienced the congestion in any of the LAS queues, for example, the LAS AC_BE queue 410B or the LAS AC_VI queue 410D, are queued and encrypted already, these downstream LAS data packets cannot be marked for CE (ECN=11) in their IP headers at the lower protocol layer 406B. Marking at the lower protocol layer 406B may be a layering violation and may require these downstream L4S data packets to be dequeued, decrypted, and then marked.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Henry by checking if the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds a congestion buffer threshold as evidenced by Gupta for the purpose of providing a scalable throughput, thereby allowing the wireless communication networks to adapt to varying levels of demand from the devices.
Regarding claim 9, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising:
transmitting the MSDU in accordance with a higher priority than is accorded to non-L4S data, said transmitted MSDU including the ECN bits (ECT, CE) set to the congestion experienced codepoint pattern (11), indicating that congestion was experienced (Gupta: paragraphs [0047 - 0048], [0077], [01 - 0106], [0134]).
Claims 4, 12, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2025/0202827; hereinafter Henry), in view of Gupta et al (US 2025/0211536; hereinafter Gupta), and further in view of Hinc et al (US 2020/0037211; hereinafter Hinc).
Regarding claim 4, Henry discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
operating the AP to decide to terminate the granted L4S classifier filter request (paragraphs [0043], [0102]; Henry discloses that the if the process 900 determines that the downstream data flow contradicts or conflicts with the network policies, the process 900 may classify the conflicting downstream data flow as non-L4S (block 960). In some embodiments, the process 900 may decline the SCS request), except for operating the AP to communicate an SCS w/L4S response frame to the first STA indicating that the grant of the L4S classifier filter request has been terminated.
Hinc, in an analogous art discloses operating the AP to communicate an SCS w/L4S response frame to the first STA indicating that the grant of the L4S classifier filter request has been terminated (fig. 3; paragraph [0051]; Hinc discloses that the control unit can receive revocation message 304 via a communications interface 218, in some examples. Revocation message 304 can be, e.g., a TS16 Heartbeat Response indicating failure of a Heartbeat Request or termination of a grant).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Henry by operating the AP to communicate an SCS w/L4S response frame to the first STA indicating that the grant of the L4S classifier filter request has been terminated as evidenced by Hinc for the purpose of permitting cellular networks to comply with restriction/policy without dropping calls or other communication sessions as a result of the loss of a spectrum grant.
Claims 10 – 15 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 6, and 9 in device form rather than method form. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 6, and 9 apply in claims 10 – 15. Therefore, claims 10 – 15 are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Henry discloses a method of operating a station (STA), the method comprising:
determining that a Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) filter should be setup at an access point (abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0018]);
generating a Stream Classification Service (SCS) w/L4S request frame (paragraphs [0011], [0018]; Henry discloses that 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 LAS enabled wireless device in response to the unsolicited dynamic SCS response frame)), the SCS w/L4S request frame including an L4S descriptor element that includes L4S descriptor information (paragraph [0041]; Henry discloses that the augmented SCS request frame may include a field, such as a one-bit field for example, that can be set by the wireless device, to request that the upstream data flow be classified as LAS. The augmented SCS request frame can also include a QoS Characteristics Element indicative of one or more flow characteristics of the upstream LAS data flow requested by the wireless device), said SCS w/LAS request frame requesting that the access point create an LAS classifier filter used to identify Media Access Control (MAC) Service Data Units (MSDUs) directed to the STA which are to be treated as L4S data and given transmission priority over regular (non-L4S) data paragraph [0065]; Henry discloses that the wireless device 210 can transmit the augmented SCS request frame to the AP 220. The augmented SCS request frame may be indicative of a request that the upstream data flow initiated by the wireless device 210 be classified as L4S) and given transmission priority over regular (non-L4S) data (paragraphs [0004], [0010], [0023]; Henry discloses that For implementing L4S, a dual queue architecture is utilized. In that, LAS traffic is maintained in a separate shallow queue. Some conventional systems also utilize a conditional priority scheduler to assign higher priority to the LAS traffic.) and designate a transmission queue (buffer) as an L4S buffer (paragraph [0101]; Henry discloses the process 900 can enqueue the downstream data flow in the L4S queue (block 950)); and
transmitting the generated SCS w/L4S request frame to the access point (paragraphs [0042], [0065]; Henry discloses that the wireless device 210 can transmit the augmented SCS request frame to the AP 220 ).
Claims 17 – 18 and 31 - 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2025/0202827; hereinafter Henry’827) ), in view of Gupta et al (US 2025/0211536; hereinafter Gupta), and further in view of Henry et al (US 2025/0088900; hereinafter Henry’900).
Regarding claim 17, Henry’827 and Gupta disclose all the limitations in claim 16, but fails to specifically disclose that wherein generating the SCS w/L4S request frame includes: including in the SCS w/LAS request frame an intra-AC queue indicating an AP queue for LAS traffic.
Henry’900, in an analogous art, discloses that wherein generating the SCS w/L4S request frame includes: including in the SCS w/LAS request frame an intra-AC queue indicating an AP queue for LAS traffic (paragraph [0032]; Henry’900 discloses that some provisions of the IEEE 802.11 standard (e.g., 802.11aa 10.4) allow STAs to indicate to an associated AP that some flows have a particular Discard Eligibility (DE), such as with a DE Indicator (DEI), to indicate that frames can be discarded when a network is congested. For flows with DE, the AP can use an alternate queue (e.g., an intra-AC queue).).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Henry’827 and Gupta by generating the SCS w/L4S request frame includes: including in the SCS w/LAS request frame an intra-AC queue indicating an AP queue for LAS traffic as evidenced by Henry’900 for the purpose of minimizing delays and enabling smoother and more efficient data transmission in a computer network environment.
Regarding claim 18, Henry’827 and Henry’900 disclose the method of claim 17, wherein said selected transmission queue for future LAS traffic is a queue that was previously designated at the access point as one of: i) a primary voice queue, 11) an alternate voice queue, a primary video queue or iv) an alternate video queue (paragraphs [0031 - 0032]).
Claims 19 – 29 and 31 - 33 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 6, 9, and 16 – 18 with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 6, 9, and 16 - 18 apply in claims 19 – 29 and 31 - 33. Therefore, claims 19 – 29 and 31 - 33 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al (US 2025/0081033) discloses systems and methods for explicit congestion notification in a radio access network.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
