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 .
Claim Objections
Claims, 4-6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
For Claim 4 the occurrence of “apparatus according to any one of the claims 1” in line 1, seems a typo error, if this is true, it is suggested to applicant to change “apparatus according to any one of the claims 1” to “apparatus according to claim 1”
Regarding claim 5, in line 1 the "wherein apparatus...” should be replaced with - - wherein the apparatus - - to be consistent with the first citation of “apparatus " in claim 1 line 1.
For Claim 6 the occurrence of “apparatus according to any one of claims 1” in line 1, seems a typo error, if this is true, it is suggested to applicant to change “apparatus according to any one of claims 1” to “apparatus according to claim 1”.
Regarding claim 10, in line 3 contains an open parenthesis without a closing one “...network line ( of the passive...” .
Appropriate corrections are 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter (US 2016/0149815 A1) in view of Mulkar et al(US 2023/0028074 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Cotter ‘815 teaches, an apparatus ([0074]- [0076] and Figs. 8-9, a hardware configuration 900) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program code and cause the apparatus to perform ([0074]- [0076] and Figs. 8-9, a hardware configuration 900 comprising processor 910 and memory 920), obtaining an indication of contention of a communications network ([0022], [0025] and Figs. 2-6, a method of managing bandwidth during a period of detected congestion); obtaining a historical bandwidth utilization indication parameter of respective participants of the communications network ([0041], [0042], [0045], calculating average bitrate or percentile demand over a measurement interval (e.g. 1 to 15 minutes) to separate heavy users from light users);
in response to determining, based on the indication of contention and the historical bandwidth utilization indication, that a participant meets an intensive capacity consumption condition ([0022], [0041], [0042], [0045] and Figs. 2-6, during periods of network congestion, identifying heavy users versus light users. A heavy user is defined by having a high average bitrate when measured of over an interval), providing a reduced value of a scheduler parameter ([0022], [0028]-[0030] and Fig. 2, scaling back bitrate non-linearly, wherein a heavy users receive a steepest drop toward an intermediate rate effectively reducing their proportion of capacity during congestion), wherein the scheduler parameter represents a proportion of a capacity of the communications network allocated to the participant when the communications network is congested([0022], [0028]-[0030] and Fig. 2, scaling back bitrate non-linearly during congestion), wherein the reduced value is lower than a preconfigured value of the scheduler parameter([0022], [0028]-[0030] and Fig. 2, scaling back bitrate non-linearly, wherein a heavy users receive a steepest drop toward an intermediate rate effectively reducing their proportion of capacity during congestion).
Cotter ‘815 does not explicitly teach, an increased value of a maximum bandwidth parameter to an output of the apparatus, wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating bandwidth to the participant meeting the intensive capacity consumption condition, wherein the maximum bandwidth parameter represents a maximum bandwidth allocated to the participant, wherein the increased value is higher than a preconfigured value of the maximum bandwidth parameter.
Mulkar ‘074 taches, an increased value of a maximum bandwidth parameter to an output of the apparatus ([0146], [0148], increasing a heavy subscriber’s bandwidth by borrowing from inactive subscribers (e.g. increasing the maximum bandwidth from 5 Mbps to 10 Mbps)), wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating bandwidth to the participant meeting the intensive capacity consumption condition ([0123], [0124], [0146], [0148] and Figs 9-11, based on weight per priority adjusting/increasing the amount of bandwidth to be used by heavy user), wherein the maximum bandwidth parameter represents a maximum bandwidth allocated to the participant ([0146], [0148] increasing a heavy subscribers bandwidth to the maximum allowed(e.g. 10 Mbps)), wherein the increased value is higher than a preconfigured value of the maximum bandwidth parameter([0146], [0148] increasing a heavy subscribers bandwidth by borrowing from inactive subscribers(e.g. increasing the maximum bandwidth from 5 Mbps to 10 Mbps)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Cotter ‘815, by incorporating the teaching of Mulkar ‘074, since such modification would provide an improved method and system for managing and prioritizing (for example, via shaping) network traffic in a distributed environment, as suggested by Mulkar ‘074 ([0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations, Cotter ‘815 further teaches, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: in response to determining, based on the historical bandwidth utilization indication, that the participant has ceased to meet the intensive capacity consumption condition([0030], [0043], based on measuring within the measurement interval(e.g. 1 to 15 minutes) determining that the heavy user is changed to light user), restoring the scheduler parameter to the preconfigured value of the scheduler parameter and/or restoring the maximum bandwidth parameter to the preconfigured value of the maximum bandwidth parameter([0030], [0043], [0147], the system adjusts/restores the bitrate and bandwidth based on whether a user is currently a heavy user or light user).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations, Mulkar ‘074 further teaches, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: in response to determining that contention of the communications network has ceased, restoring the scheduler parameter to the preconfigured value of the scheduler parameter and/or restoring the maximum bandwidth parameter to the preconfigured value of the maximum bandwidth parameter( [0003], [0046], applying the fair split only when congestion is detected and the system restores to normal bandwidth use when congestion eases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Cotter ‘815, by incorporating the teaching of Mulkar ‘074, since such modification would provide an improved method and system for managing and prioritizing (for example, via shaping) network traffic in a distributed environment, as suggested by Mulkar ‘074 ([0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations, Cotter ‘815 further teaches, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: obtaining the historical bandwidth utilization indication over a plurality of rolling time windows([0042], [0052], measuring utilization over configured interval (e.g. 1-15 minutes)); determining that a participant meets the intensive capacity consumption condition in case a data volume consumed by the participant during at least one of the rolling time windows exceeds a reference data volume([0042], [0052], [0042], [0052], measuring utilization over configured interval and identifying heavy users if their average bitrate is high over the configured interval).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations, Cotter ‘815 further teaches, wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform testing whether the participant meets the intensive capacity consumption condition in response to the indication of contention ([0022], [0044], the measuring of bitrate within interval occur in response of detected congestion).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations, Cotter ‘815 further teaches, wherein the participant of the communications network is one of a subscriber of a network operator, a virtual network operator or a subscriber of the virtual network operator([0065], [0084], user as subscriber of a network operator disclosed, notice the claim limitation is written in alternative form thus examiner is required to show only one of the alternative claim limitations).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Goodson et al(US 2015/0350082 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the communications network is a passive optical network wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating downstream bandwidth to the participant.
Goodson ‘083 taches, wherein the communications network is a passive optical network( [0019], [0046] and Fig. 1, PON 39) wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating downstream bandwidth to the participant([0047]-[0050] and Fig. 5, dynamic downstream bandwidth allocation ,that adjusts the bandwidth allocation to users during detected network congestion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074, by incorporating the teaching of Goodson ‘083, since such modification would provide a system for a more fair allocation of network bandwidth, without significantly increasing the cost or complexity of the network, as suggested by Goodson ‘083([0004]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 and Goodson ‘083 teaches all of the claim limitations Mulkar ‘074 further teaches, wherein the scheduler parameter indicates a weight allocated to the participant of the communications network for use in a Weighted Fair Queue scheduler, wherein the Weighted Fair Queue scheduler is arranged in a network line termination of the passive optical network( [0045], [0046], [0066], WFQ and detail process are where weights are assigned to priorities to allow for a minimum guaranteed bandwidth to each priority traffic is disclose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system of Cotter ‘815, by incorporating the teaching of Mulkar ‘074, since such modification would provide an improved method and system for managing and prioritizing (for example, via shaping) network traffic in a distributed environment, as suggested by Mulkar ‘074 ([0006], [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 and Goodson ‘083 teaches all of the claim limitations Cotter ‘815 further teaches, wherein the maximum bandwidth parameter is a shaper parameter for use in a traffic shaper, wherein the traffic shaper is arranged in one of: a network line termination (of the passive optical network and a broadband network gateway (28) connected to the network line termination([0025], [0065], CMTS and edge router performing the scaling, wherein shaping network traffic as a standard QoS feature).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 as applied to claims above, and further in view of Luo et al(US 2021/0266651 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074 teaches all of the claim limitations except, wherein the communications network is a passive optical network, wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating upstream bandwidth to the participant, wherein the scheduler parameter and maximum bandwidth parameter are for use in a Dynamic bandwidth allocation module, wherein the Dynamic bandwidth allocation module is arranged in a network line termination of the passive optical network.
Luo ‘651 teaches, wherein the communications network is a passive optical network( [0059], [0060] and Fig. 3, dynamic bandwidth allocation in PON) wherein the scheduler parameter and the maximum bandwidth parameter are related to allocating upstream bandwidth to the participant([0063], [0064], [0064], dynamically allocating the maximum allowed upstream bandwidth for users/subscribers in a PON) wherein the scheduler parameter and maximum bandwidth parameter are for use in a Dynamic bandwidth allocation module([0063], [0064], [0064], dynamically allocating the maximum allowed upstream bandwidth), wherein the Dynamic bandwidth allocation module is arranged in a network line termination of the passive optical network([ [0064], [0064], [0125], DBA controller dynamically allocating the maximum allowed upstream bandwidth in PON).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined communication system of Cotter ‘815 and Mulkar ‘074, by incorporating the teaching of Luo ‘651, since such modification would provide a dynamic bandwidth allocation method and a related device, that can avoid congestion and an internal packet loss that occurs in upstream, and effectively reduce a delay, costs, and power consumption of an entire network, as suggested by Luo ‘651([0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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, which can be found: 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; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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.
/AWET HAILE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474