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 01/14/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 16, 21, 24, and 28 – 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument the Examiner cited portions of the Henry reference do
NOT mention or disclose an ECN threshold included in L4S descriptor information sent to the access point from a station. An ECN indicator indicators whether or not congestion was experienced and is NOT a threshold. Accordingly it should be appreciated that the an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator does not in any way anticipate or render obvious the receiving step recited in claim 1 or any of the other pending independent claims. Accordingly amended claim 1 and all the other claims are patentable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion because while the reference does not use the word “threshold”, it is clear that such reference does discloses that the ECN indicator can be an ECN capable transport (ECT) value or a congestion experience (CE) value. (see paragraph [0009]). Based on the CE value which can be defined as a threshold or parameter value to detect whether or not there is a congestion. How can one determine if there is a congestion if a threshold value is not set.
Henry further discloses that the AP can enqueue the upstream LAS data flow in the LAS queue associated with the L4S data flow. In that, the AP may implement a dual queue, viz., the AQM queue for the LAS data flows and the classic queue for the non-LAS data flows. In some embodiments, the AP may allow the L4S treatment to any data flows that include a congestion indicator. In that, the AP can receive the data flow comprising one or more data packets. 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. Hence, the AP may not limit the L4S treatment to only the data flows that are explicitly marked as L4S, thereby providing more flexibility in handling the LAS traffic. Such dynamic classification of the L4S data flows overcomes drawbacks faced by conventional systems where the L4S data flows that are not explicitly marked as LAS or that are directed to the wireless device whose LAS capability is unknown, often face latency or congestion. The dynamic classification of the LAS data flows also introduces flexibility by allowing the APs to dynamically mitigate the congestion by providing the L4S treatment based on the ECN indicators in the data flows, thereby improving the throughput of the wireless communication network. (see paragraph [0044]).
The Examiner has cited the Gupta reference in the last office action to show how the network traffic may be classified based on an ECN value in IP headers of the data packets. (see paragraphs [0055], [0074 - 0075] of Gupta).
Thus, the Examiner contends that the prior art read on the claimed invention.
It appears that applicants are interpreting the claims very narrow without considering the broad teaching of the references used in the rejection. Applicants are reminded that the examiner is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Prater 162 USPQ 541,550-51 (CCPA 1969).
In view of such, the rejections are as follows:
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 – 3, 5, 10 – 11, 13 – 16, 19 – 21, 23 – 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Henry et al (US 2025/0202827; hereinafter Henry).
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 including an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) threshold (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).
Regarding claim 2, Henry discloses 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 (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 discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the L4S descriptor element further includes a first STA specified latency target and a first STA specified loss tolerance to be applied by the access point to the transmission of identified L4S traffic (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 discloses 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]).
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 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 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 6 - 9 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 2025/0212052; hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 6, Henry discloses all the limitations in claim 5, including the idea of having an ECN indicator that indicates the congestion on the link (see paragraphs [0043 - 0045], [0062), but fails to specifically disclose the idea of checking if the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds a congestion buffer threshold.
Gupta, in an analogous art, discloses the idea of checking if the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds a congestion buffer threshold (paragraphs [0021], [0051], [0150]; 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).
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 7, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 6, wherein said congestion buffer threshold is the ECN threshold communicated from the first STA to the access point in the received L4S descriptor element (Henry: paragraphs [0043 - 0045], [0062]; Henry discloses the congestion indicator may be an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) indicator. Upon detecting the ECN indicator in one of the upstream data packets, the AP 120 can treat the upstream data flow as an upstream LAS data flow); Gupta: paragraphs [0046 – 0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Henry and Gupta disclose the method of claim 6, further comprising:
in response to determining that the amount of data in the L4S data buffer exceeds the congestion buffer threshold, setting a congestion experienced (CE) codepoint (ECN = 11) in the MSDU prior to communicating the MSDU to the first station (Henry: paragraphs [0062], [0076], [0093]; Henry discloses that the ECN indicator may 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.); (Gupta: paragraphs [0041], [0046].
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 (paragraphs [0004], [0101 – 0101], [0061 - 0062]; Henry discloses that the AP 120 can include a classifier 122 to classify incoming data flows as LAS or non-LAS. The AP 120 may also implement a dual queue, viz., an Active Queue Management (AQM) queue for LAS data flows, i.e., an LAS queue 126 and a classic queue 128 for non-LAS data flows. The AP 120 can further include a scheduler 124 to schedule the incoming data flows based on whether the incoming data flows are L4S or non-LAS. In certain embodiments, the scheduler 124 may be a conditional priority scheduler that can prioritize the L4S data flows over the non-LAS data flows. Accordingly, the AP 120 may receive the incoming data flows and transmit the incoming data flows based on whether the data flows qualify for L4S treatment or whether the data flows are non-L4S data flows); (Gupta: paragraphs [0004], [0077], [0134]).
Claims 10 – 15 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 9 in device form rather than method form. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 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 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al (US 2025/0202827; hereinafter Henry’827) in view of Henry et al (US 2025/0088900; hereinafter Henry’900).
Regarding claim 17, Henry’827 discloses 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 teaching of Henry’827 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 – 30 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 9 and 16 – 18 with minor modifications in the claimed language. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 9 and 16 - 18 apply in claims 19 – 30. Therefore, claims 19 – 30 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Gupta et al (US 2025/0211536) discloses a managing congestion notifications for low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) data flows.
WANG et al (US 2008/0008092) discloses reducing packet loss for a packet data service during congestion in a transport network.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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