DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on May 20th 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 8) that Rochon’s priority class or tags is merely a label and not a queueing algorithm, that is patently false. By using priority via DSCP markings in a header, the packet is acted on in a particular way – this is scheduling behavior and an indication of a queueing algorithm (i.e. instead of just using FIFO, the packet is processed based on the priority markings in the header). For example, DSCP provides differentiated services which relates not only to priority, but also can control what queue a packet is placed into. Priority queueing is a scheduling behavior and a queueing algorithm. Applicant’s own specification explains this, “The DSCP markings in the IP header are typically used at routing nodes to determine the per-hop queuing and forwarding behavior” (see paragraph 62, emphasis added). So by arguing that the DSCP / TOS header markings of Rochon is merely priority, applicant is also arguing against their own disclosure which explicitly teaches that DSCP is used to configure a router’s queuing / scheduling behavior. Applicant also suggests (pg. 8) the prior art treats packet classification and scheduling as distinct and isolated functions. This is not persuasive. As explained above, packet priority/classification controls queueing/schedule. Thus, these are highly interrelated and dependent, not isolated as suggested by applicant. For at least these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat et al. US 2021/0219186 A1 in view of Francini et al. US 11,336,582 B1 and Rochon et al. US 2010/0188974 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Canpolat discloses a device comprising a processor; at least one network interface controller; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (AP – Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 20, 170); the memory comprises:
flow management logic (AP is capable of initiating QoS flow – paragraph 44, Figs. 1-4) that is configured to: receive a stream classification service (SCS) request (Stream classification service request – paragraphs 20-22);
select a flow based on the SCS request; identify a flow policy (select a flow and policy based on SRQ/QoS parameters transmitted or negotiated – see Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 35-45 and 70);
determine a scheduling behavior related to the flow policy (determine scheduling – paragraphs 160-169); and
transmit the scheduling behavior to one or more … nodes (STA and AP exchange the profile containing scheduling information – paragraphs 163-169).
Canpolat does not explicitly disclose wherein the scheduling behavior comprises one or more queueing algorithms. But this is taught by Francini as a packet scheduler that services queues based on scheduling algorithms (col. 14 ln. 54-67), and scheduling policy such as WFQ (see col. 15 ln. 45 – col. 16 ln. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Canpolat with the queuing algorithm taught by Francini for the purpose of improving network traffic. Francini teaches this provides enforcement of QoS guarantees (col. 15 ln. 40-45).
The combination of Canpolat and Francini does not explicitly disclose transmit the scheduling behavior to one or more routing nodes by modifying a marking in an internet protocol header to align with an indication of the one or more queueing algorithms to configured the one or more routing nodes but this is taught by Rochon as transmitting packet markings via DSCP values in IP header (e.g. ToS field) which are used for traffic scheduling (abstract, paragraphs 40-41). The IP packets with marking in header are transmitted to a routing node (Figs. 1-2, paragraph 18). DSCP is used to perform classification and ensures that packets are assigned to a specific queue (see paragraph 47). Thus, these DSCP header markings are an indication of a queueing algorithm to configure the routing node.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Canpolat and Francini with the header markings taught by Rochon for the purpose of packet scheduling. The ToS field/DSCP of IP an header is well-known in the art. Thus, this is simply the combination of a conventional and routine well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Canpolat discloses the SCS request is received from a client device (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 20-22, 42).
Regarding claim 3, Canpolat discloses wherein determining a scheduling behavior is based on quality of service characteristics of the flow (schedule based on QoS – paragraphs 42-44 and 160-169).
Regarding claim 4, Canpolat discloses wherein the quality of service is associated with at least one application (QoS flows are for applications – see paragraphs 15, 56, 61).
Regarding claim 5, Canpolat discloses wherein the flow management logic is further configured to generate a classification based on at least the flow policy (traffic/stream classification – paragraphs 21-22; classification is specified based on the traffic – paragraphs 160-161).
Regarding claim 6, Canpolat discloses the classification is associated with an internet protocol header (frames in IP data – paragraphs 45-46, thus they are “associated”; also see Table after paragraph 163).
Regarding claim 7, Canpolat discloses the classification is a differentiated services code point marking (DSCP - paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 8, Canpolat discloses the marking is applied to an upstream flow (data flowing from STA to AP is considered “upstream” – see Figs. 1-8; also see paragraph 169 which teaches “uplink” direction).
Regrading claim 9, Canpolat discloses the flow management logic is further configured to generate one or more queues in response to the scheduling behavior (allocates resources – paragraph 100; also see paragraph 115 which teaches releasing the resources allocated upon termination).
Regarding claim 10, Canpolat discloses the one or more queues are generated in response to one or more quality of service characteristics of the flow (the entire purpose of Canpolat is QoS management – see abstract, paragraph 20; the flow has QoS – paragraphs 44-46, and the required resources are allocated – paragraph 100).
Regarding claim 11, it is a device that corresponds to the device of claim 1; the corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons. Canpolat also discloses determine a flow for classification (see rejection of claim 5, wherein a classification is generated based on a flow); classify the flow (classify traffic – paragraph 157); receive a scheduling behavior for the flow (see rejection of claim 1, wherein the scheduling behavior is transmitted between STA and AP); and schedule the flow based on the scheduling behavior (provide scheduling – see paragraphs 160-169).
Regarding claim 12, Canpolat discloses the flow management logic is further configured to analyze the scheduling behavior (update profile based on conditions – Fig. 7, paragraphs 88; this is equivalent to “analyze”, and the network load/operating conditions are a result of the scheduling behavior).
Regarding claim 13, Canpolat discloses the flow management logic is further configured to prioritize the scheduling of the flow based on the analysis of the analysis of the scheduling behavior (priority mark flow/traffic – paragraphs 21, 41; results in flow being prioritized – paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim that corresponds to the device of claim 1; thus it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Canpolat discloses generating one or more classifications based on the scheduling behavior (traffic/stream classification – paragraphs 21-22; classification is specified based on the traffic/schedule – paragraphs 160-169).
Regarding claim 19, generating one or more queues in response to the scheduling behavior (allocates resources – paragraph 100; also see paragraph 115 which teaches releasing the resources allocated upon termination).
Regarding claim 20, Canpolat discloses the one or more queues are generated based on at least a quality of service characteristic associated with the SCS request (the entire purpose of Canpolat is QoS management – see abstract, paragraph 20; the flow has QoS – paragraphs 44-46, use SCS – paragraph 22; and the required resources are allocated – paragraph 100).
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat, Francini and Rochon in view of Cavalcanti et al. US 2018/0184450 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Canpolat discloses forwarding [data] to additional network devices on the network (the STA communicates with other stations – paragraph 171). Canpolat does not explicitly disclose forwarding the scheduling behavior but this is taught by Cavalcanti as transmitting scheduling data to a plurality of network devices (abstract, Figs. 1, 6, paragraphs 29, 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Canpolat to transmit scheduling behavior as taught by Cavalcanti. Cavalcanti suggests this allows devices access to the wireless medium during the scheduled periods (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 16, Canpolat does not explicitly disclose the additional network devices are not connected via a wireless connection but this is taught by Cavalcanti as using Ethernet (paragraph 2) or other wired communication links (paragraph 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Canpolat with the wired connection taught by Cavalcanti. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 17, Canpolat does not explicitly disclose the additional network devices are routing nodes but this is taught by Cavalcanti (wired router – paragraph 79). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Canpolat with the routers taught by Cavalcanti. This is merely the combination of a well-known element according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. US 2022/0408304 A1 discloses a priority control system (abstract) that uses DSCP in an IP packet header to provide “queueing, scheduling, and the like” in accordance with the priority; the system “prepares a queue per priority” and places the packet into the appropriate queue based on the DSCP markings in a header (see paragraph 62, Fig. 7).
Jorgensen US 2003/0067903 A1 discloses that it is well-known in the art to use header information to schedule IP packet flows (paragraph 340).
Zhu et al. US 2021/0409335 A1 discloses queuing algorithms to schedule network packets (paragraph 188).
Contavalli et al. US 2018/0212886 A1 discloses a scheduled implementing a weighted fair queuing algorithm to ensure multiple packet flows share bandwidth (paragraph 30).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights