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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 8/06/24 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
4. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al.
a. As per claim 1, Hoole et al teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
establishing a network session with a device, wherein the device is connected to a local area network (LAN), and wherein portions of data to be provided to the device during the network session are configured to be selectively provided to the device via the network using a first queue for preferential network traffic or a second queue for non-preferential network traffic, the first queue and the second queue being provided by at least one networking equipment (See paragraph [0175]); during the network session: identifying one or more characteristics of a portion of the network session data (See paragraph [0008, 0010], parsing data traffic to support one or more requirements or functions, including prioritization of traffic according to latency) data associated with an application running on the device and second portion of the network session data associated with the application running on the device; determining, based on the one or more characteristics of the first portion of the network session data, whether to provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0017, 0031, 0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140], the classifier apparatus uses the extracted DSCP markings to re-sort the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues); and based on determining to provide the portion of the network session data using the first queue for preferential network traffic, providing the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0036, 0139-0140]), determining, based on the one or more characteristics of the second portion of the network session data, whether to provide the second portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0028, 0031-0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140], The sorting algorithm is configured to extract/read DSCP values from data packets and compare the DSCP values against one or more lists of DSCP values. The DSCP values may be read for example from the DS fields of IP headers. In one implementation, the DSCP values are based on QFI values of 5G NR traffic, and can include hierarchical listings of DSCP values with one or more DSCP list thresholds (used to e.g., divide the hierarchical listings of DSCP values into tiers). The sorting algorithm may also use the list(s) of DSCP values to prioritize and/or de-prioritize types of traffic, e.g., prioritizing voice/video/live gaming services or AR/VR traffic); and based on determining to provide the second portion of the network session data using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic, providing the second portion of the network session data to the device using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0028, 0031-0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140], The sorting algorithm is configured to extract/read DSCP values from data packets and compare the DSCP values against one or more lists of DSCP values. The DSCP values may be read for example from the DS fields of IP headers. In one implementation, the DSCP values are based on QFI values of 5G NR traffic, and can include hierarchical listings of DSCP values with one or more DSCP list thresholds (used to e.g., divide the hierarchical listings of DSCP values into tiers). However, Hoole et al fails to explicitly teach during the network session: identifying one or more characteristics of a portion of the network session data (See paragraph [0008, 0010], parsing data traffic to support one or more requirements or functions, including prioritization of traffic according to latency) data associated with an application running on the device and second portion of the network session data associated with the application running on the device
Yasuda et al teaches during the network session: identifying one or more characteristics of a portion of the network session data data associated with an application running on the device and second portion of the network session data associated with the application running on the device (See paragraph [0032], the application processing unit 5 executes an application (application software) and 0034], The first control data priority control section 61 distributes the control data sent from the TCP reception processing unit 3 into either one of the high priority sub queue 63 and the low priority sub queue 64 on the basis of a kind of the control data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Yasuda et al in the claimed invention of Hoole et al in order to control transmission data transfer.
b. As per claim 2, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: identifying the one or more characteristics of the portion of the network session data comprises determining whether the fisrt portion of the network session data is latency sensitive (See paragraph [0017, 0020, and 0090], network apparatus in order to meet one or more of quality of service (QoS) and quality of experience (QoE) standards, and the separate queues include a Low Latency queue and a Normal/Classical queue); determining whether to provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic is based on whether the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive (See paragraph [0017, 0020 and 0090]); and based on determining that the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive, providing the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0036, 0139-0140]).
c. As per claim 3, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: the network session comprises a video gaming session and the network session data comprises data for a video game played by a user of the device during the video gaming session; and determining that the first first portion of the network
session data is latency sensitive comprises determining that the first first portion of the network session data corresponds to one or more characters within the video game being controlled by the user the method further comprising determining that the second portion of the network session data is not latency sensitive, and providing the second portion of the network session data to the device using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic, based at least in part on determining that the second portion of the network session data corresponds (See paragraph [0023-0024], the sorting algorithm (i) evaluates and sorts data traffic into low latency (LL) and best effort (BE) traffic in the first sorting stage, (ii) feeds some or all of the sorted data traffic to the second sorting stage, (iii) evaluates some or all of the data traffic in the second stage, (iv) re-sorts at least some of the evaluated data traffic into LL and BE in the second sorting stage; and (v) fees the LL and BE data traffic to respective Low Latency and Normal queues) to a cutscene or menu screen of the video game (See paragraph [0113]).
d. As per claim 4, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein determining whether the portion of the network session data is latency sensitive is further based at least in part on at least one of a type of the video game or a type of a video game portion in which the one or more characters are being controlled by the user (See paragraph [0113 and 0131]).
e. As per claim 5, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein the determining whether the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive is based at least in part on identifying metadata associated with the video game and determining whether the metadata indicates that the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive (See paragraph [0006, 0028, 0113]).
f. As per claim 8, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: the network session data is provided by an application service provider during the network session (See paragraph [0017, 0031, 0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140].
g. As per claim 9, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: identifying the one or more characteristics of the first portion of the network session data comprises determining a threshold level of localization accuracy or a threshold level of localization precision required for the first portion of the network session data (See paragraph [0143], a listing of DSCP values includes a hierarchical list of DSCP values sorted by priority. For example, one or more DSCP “thresholds” may be provided to the classifier apparatus and used to divide a hierarchical list of DSCP values. A listing of DSCP values used by the classifier may include all possible DSCP values (0 to 63) or only a certain subset of all DSCP values. The classifier apparatus in this embodiment sorts the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal queues based on one or more DSCP thresholds that can be used to divide a hierarchical list of DSCP values into separate lists); and determining to provide the first portion of the network session data using the first queue for preferential network traffic based on determining the localization accuracy required for the first portion of the network session data exceeds the threshold level of localization accuracy or the localization precision required for the first portion of the network session data exceeds the threshold level of precision (See paragraph [0143-0144]).
h. As per claim 10, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein determining the localization accuracy required for the first portion of the network session data exceeds the threshold level of localization accuracy or the localization precision required for the first portion of the network session data exceeds the threshold level of precision based on at least one of a proximity of the device to one or more objects in an environment of the device or a speed of the device (See paragraph [0146]).
i. As per claim 16, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: the network session comprises a multiplayer video gaming session in which users are playing a video game with each other over the network via a plurality of devices (See paragraph [0113]), wherein the plurality of devices include the device and one or more other devices; the one or more other devices are remote from the device of the LAN (See paragraph [0195]); and the method further comprises, based on determining that a particular device of the one or more other devices is not capable of receiving or processing preferential network traffic over the network using the first queue for preferential network traffic, providing data to each of the plurality of devices using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic for a remainder of the network session (See paragraph [0031, 0113 and 0131]).
j. As per claim 17, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein determining that the particular device of the other devices is not capable of receiving or processing preferential network traffic over the network using the first queue for preferential network traffic comprises analyzing a network packet received from the particular device (See paragraph [0025, 0030-0031 and 0034]).
k. As per claim 18, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein the device is associated with a controller, and the method further comprises: causing network session data, corresponding to input received via the controller in relation to the portion of the network session data, to be processed using the first queue for preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0110]).
l. As per claim 19, Hoole et al teaches a system comprising: control circuitry configured to (See paragraph [0040], an integrated circuit (IC) device implementing one or more of the foregoing aspects of data packet routing or prioritization or processing): establish a network session with a device during which network session data is provided to the device via a network, wherein the device is connected to a local area network (LAN), and wherein portions of data are configured to be selectively provided to the device via the network using a first queue for preferential network traffic or a second queue for non-preferential network traffic, the first queue and the second queue being provided by at least one networking equipment (See paragraph [0024, 0090, 0175], sorting algorithm to parse the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal/Best Effort queues, as supported by the DOCSIS 3.1/4.0 standards. The parsed data traffic is fed into appropriate Low Latency and Normal queues, such that the Low Latency queue data packets are scheduled with a strict priority while the Normal queue data packets are scheduled with a weighted priority ) ; during the network session: determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the portion of the network session data, whether to provide the portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0024], the sorting algorithm (i) evaluates and sorts data traffic into low latency (LL) and best effort (BE) traffic in the first sorting stage); and based on determining to provide the portion of the network session data using the first queue for preferential network traffic, provide the portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0036, 0139-0140]); determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the second portion of the network session data, whether to provide the second portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0028, 0031-0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140], The sorting algorithm is configured to extract/read DSCP values from data packets and compare the DSCP values against one or more lists of DSCP values. The DSCP values may be read for example from the DS fields of IP headers. In one implementation, the DSCP values are based on QFI values of 5G NR traffic, and can include hierarchical listings of DSCP values with one or more DSCP list thresholds (used to e.g., divide the hierarchical listings of DSCP values into tiers); and based on determining to provide the second portion of the network session data using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic, provide the second portion of the network session data to the device using the second queue for non-preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0028, 0031-0032, 0109-0110, 0139-0140], The sorting algorithm is configured to extract/read DSCP values from data packets and compare the DSCP values against one or more lists of DSCP values. The DSCP values may be read for example from the DS fields of IP headers. In one implementation, the DSCP values are based on QFI values of 5G NR traffic, and can include hierarchical listings of DSCP values with one or more DSCP list thresholds (used to e.g., divide the hierarchical listings of DSCP values into tiers) . However, Hoole et al fails to explicitly teach during the network session identify one or more characteristics of a portion of the network session data associated with an application running on the device and a second portion of the network session data associated with the application running on the device.
Yasuda et al teaches during the network session identify one or more characteristics of a portion of the network session data associated with an application running on the device and a second portion of the network session data associated with the application running on the device.
(See paragraph [0032], the application processing unit 5 executes an application (application software) and 0034], The first control data priority control section 61 distributes the control data sent from the TCP reception processing unit 3 into either one of the high priority sub queue 63 and the low priority sub queue 64 on the basis of a kind of the control data).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Yasuda et al in the claimed invention of Hoole et al in order to control transmission data transfer.
m. As per claim 20, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Hoole et al teaches wherein: the control circuitry is configured to identify the one or more characteristics of the first portion of the network session data by determining whether the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive (See paragraph [0024], the sorting algorithm (i) evaluates and sorts data traffic into low latency (LL) and best effort (BE) traffic in the first sorting stage) the control circuitry is configured to determine whether to provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic based on whether the first portion of the network session data is latency sensitive (See paragraph [0024, 0090, 0175], sorting algorithm to parse the data traffic into Low Latency and Normal/Best Effort queues, as supported by the DOCSIS 3.1/4.0 standards. The parsed data traffic is fed into appropriate Low Latency and Normal queues, such that the Low Latency queue data packets are scheduled with a strict priority while the Normal queue data packets are scheduled with a weighted priority ); and the control circuitry is configured to, based on determining that the portion of the network session data is latency sensitive, provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic (see paragraph [0036, 0139-0140]).
4. Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0311844 to Daniali.
a. As per claim 6, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al fails to teach wherein the metadata is received via an API call.
Daniali teaches wherein the metadata is received via an API call (See paragraph [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Daniali in order to provide the data to the user.
b. As per claim 12, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al fails to teach wherein the device is an extended reality (XR) device, and causing data transmitted by the device to be provided to a remote server using the first queue for preferential network traffic is further based on determining whether one or more virtual objects rendered by the XR device are within a threshold distance of a physical object in an environment surrounding the XR device.
Daniali teaches wherein the device is an extended reality (XR) device, and causing data transmitted by the device to be provided to a remote server using the first queue for preferential network traffic is further based on determining whether one or more virtual objects rendered by the XR device are within a threshold distance of a physical object in an environment surrounding the XR device (See paragraph [0031-0032, 0036, 0051 and 0057]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Daniali in the claimed invention of Hoole in order to adapt multiple devices to the system.
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable .S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view U.S. Publication No. 2013/0100803 to Menchaca et al.
a. As per claim 7, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al teaches wherein: determining whether to provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic based at least in part on a bandwidth of the network and a jitter associated with providing the first portion of the network session data over the network.
Menchaca et al teaches wherein: determining whether to provide the first portion of the network session data to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic or the second queue for non-preferential network traffic based at least in part on a bandwidth of the network and a jitter associated with providing the first portion of the network session data over the network (See paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Menchaca et al in the claimed invention of Hoole et al in order to in order to implement a packet stream detection and application.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view U.S. Patent 11069082 to Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al.
a. As per claim 13, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al fails to teach wherein the device is a robotic device, and the method further comprises causing data transmitted by the device to be provided to a remote server using the first queue for preferential network traffic is based on determining whether one or more objects are within a threshold distance of the robotic device.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al teaches wherein the device is a robotic device, and the method further comprises causing data transmitted by the device to be provided to a remote server using the first queue for preferential network traffic is based on determining whether one or more objects are within a threshold distance of the robotic device (See col. 33, lines 60-67 and col. 34, lines 1-43; col. 177, lines 58-67 and col. 178, lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al in the claimed invention of Hoole in order to create a strict priority queue for preferred traffic (See col. 177, lines 58-67 and col. 1-16).
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view U.S. Publication No. 2011/0051695 to Dinan.
a. As per claim 14, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al fails to teach based on determining to provide the first portion of the network session data using the first queue for preferential network traffic, causing bits of the first portion of the network session data to be marked with an indication that the first portion of the network session data is to be provided to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic.
Dinan et al teaches based on determining to provide the first portion of the network session data using the first queue for preferential network traffic, causing bits of the first portion of the network session data to be marked with an indication that the first portion of the network session data is to be provided to the device using the first queue for preferential network traffic (See paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Dinan et al in the claimed invention of Hoole et al in order to specify forwarding preference (See paragraph [0054]).
8. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over .S. Publication No. 2021/0119941 to Hoole et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0270976 to Yasuda et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view U.S. Publication No. 2018/0343206 to White et al.
a. As per claim 15, Hoole et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hoole et al fails to explicitly teach wherein the first queue for the preferential network traffic is for low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) network traffic.
White et al teaches wherein the first queue for the preferential network traffic is for low latency, low loss, and scalable throughput (L4S) network traffic (See paragraph [0007-0008]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of White et al in order to improve the traffic flow of the network (See paragraph [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 11 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights