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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed at claims 1-11 (see pg. 8-9), these arguments hinge entirely on the new limitation “and adding, by the first forwarding node, a first packet loss concealment policy of the plurality of packet loss concealment policies to the packet to obtain an updated packet in response to a duration for executing the first packet loss concealment policy exceeding a latency threshold difference”. As will be discussed further in the 112A/112B rejection portion of this action, the newly amended limitation is unclear and appears to lack support in the specification. In light of the 112A/112B rejection Examiner does not present a prior art rejection for claims including or depending on a claim including this limitation as it is unclear as to how the claim should be interpreted.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 9-11, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-17 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Zhou (EP 3940974) in view of Riga (US 20080049620), further in view of Wang (20190104079), as will be described further in the 103 rejection portion of this action. To summarize, Zhou teaches most of the method of claim 12, but only for a single link. In view of Zhou, Riga provides motivation to expand Zhou’s method across a plurality of links between forwarding nodes. The combination of Zhou and Riga however does not teach: “determining a maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link… based on… network quality parameters of the plurality of segment links.” Wang cures this deficiency as shown in para. 88: “a packet loss rate threshold is determined based on a historical packet loss rate” [of the link].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 reads: “and adding, by the first forwarding node, a first packet loss concealment policy of the plurality of packet loss concealment policies to the packet to obtain an updated packet in response to a duration for executing the first packet loss concealment policy exceeding a latency threshold difference” Examiner searched the instant specification for the term “latency threshold difference,” but only found examples of transmitting a packet (that does not contain a packet loss concealment policy) in response to a duration for executing a packet loss concealment policy exceeding a latency threshold difference (see paragraphs 29, 54, 67, and 217 of the instant specification). This is different from the amended subject matter of claim 1, which suggests adding a packet loss concealment policy to a packet in response to the duration for execution exceeding a latency threshold difference.
Further, at least by their dependency on claim 1 or 6, claims 2-5, 7-11, and 18-20 are also rejected under 112a.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reads: “and adding, by the first forwarding node, a first packet loss concealment policy of the plurality of packet loss concealment policies to the packet to obtain an updated packet in response to a duration for executing the first packet loss concealment policy exceeding a latency threshold difference”. It is unclear what the “duration for executing” is referring to. Is the first packet loss concealment policy executed at the first node? Or is this a estimated duration for the second node to execute the first packet loss concealment policy upon receiving the updated packet? Further it is unclear what “a latency threshold difference” is or how it is calculated/received.
Further, at least by their dependency on claim 1 or 6, claims 2-5, 7-11, and 18-20 are also rejected under 112b.
In light of the 112A/112B rejection Examiner does not present a prior art rejection for claims including or depending on a claim including this limitation as it is unclear as to how the claim should be interpreted.
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.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (EP 3940974 B1) in view of Riga (US 20080049620) and Wang (US 20190104079).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou teaches:
A packet loss management method, comprising:
obtaining, by a controller, a forwarding path of service traffic (para. 56: The packet-loss-concealment controller is configured to determine the path used to send the data stream.)
and a network quality requirement of the service traffic; (para. 103: Processes in which the control device determines the path used to send the data stream and in which the control device determines the packet-loss-concealment policy that is for the data stream are the same as the processes in which the sending device determines the path used to send the data stream and in which the sending device determines the packet-loss-concealment policy that is for the data stream. And para. 57: the sending device [control device] obtains given optimization target information [network quality requirement] for sending the data stream. For example, if the to-be-sent data stream is a video stream of a video conference, an overall effect, such as a smooth video and no frame freezing, of the video conference needs to be ensured. The sending device generates a packet-loss-concealment target value through internal conversion. For example, a packet loss rate of the data stream in the transmission process needs to be less than 0.01%.)
obtaining, by the controller, network quality parameters of… [a] segment link on the forwarding path, (para. 57: The packet-loss-concealment controller of the sending device dynamically determines the packet-loss-concealment policy based on path status information, such as a packet loss rate)
determining a maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link… based on the network quality requirement of the service traffic… (see para. 57: the sending device [control device] obtains given optimization target information [network quality requirements] for sending the data stream. For example, if the to-be-sent data stream is a video stream of a video conference, an overall effect, such as a smooth video and no frame freezing, of the video conference needs to be ensured. The sending device generates a packet-loss-concealment target value through internal conversion. For example, a packet loss rate of the data stream in the transmission process needs to be less than 0.01% [maximum allowed packet loss rate].)
determining, by the controller based on the maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link… a… packet loss concealment polic[y] used when a packet loss occurs on each segment link…; (see para. 58: the packet-loss-concealment controller may constrain the path status information of the path based on a set constraint condition, for example, a packet loss rate threshold [maximum allowed packet rate], a delay threshold, a network jitter threshold, an available bandwidth threshold, and another threshold, to determine the packet-loss-concealment policy)
and sending, by the controller, the respective packet loss concealment polic[y] to [a] respective head node… for each segment link... (para. 96: the control device sends the determined packet-loss-concealment policy to the sending device.)
However, Zhou only teaches one sending device and only one lane of a link over which the packet loss concealment packet is transmitted. Further, Zhou does not teach:
Determining a maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link… based on… the network quality parameters of [the segment link]…
In the analogous art of digital transmissions, Wang teaches:
Determining a maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link… based on… the network quality parameters of [the segment link]… (para. 88: a packet loss rate threshold is determined based on a historical packet loss rate [of each link within a given network, see para. 121])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou and Wang before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate basing the packet loss rate threshold on actual historical packet loss rate performance of links in a network (taught by Wang) into the packet loss management method taught by Zhou, to allow for the benefit of blockage prevention and better transmission.
However, the combination of Zhou and Wang does not teach:
A plurality of segment links on the forwarding path, wherein each segment link of the plurality of segment links is a link between two neighboring forwarding nodes on the forwarding path.
Riga teaches:
A plurality of segment links on the forwarding path, wherein each segment link of the plurality of segment links is a link between two neighboring forwarding nodes on the forwarding path. (fig. 1, links between source node 102 and intermediate node 104, between intermediate node 104 and intermediate node 106, and between intermediate node 106 and destination node 108.)
Riga teaches a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (fig. 1, para. 25). When this teaching is applied to the packet loss management method in Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to repeat the method performed at the sending device (first forwarding node) at the receiving device (second forwarding node) for all forwarding nodes in Riga. Additionally, the controller taught by Zhou would similarly be able to obtain network quality parameters for the additional lanes of the link and be able to determine a policy for each link and send that policy to the forwarding node. This would be an obvious modification because it would be necessary for Zhou’s method (which operates based on information about a single link) to perform correctly on Riga’s forwarding nodes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou, Wang, and Riga before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (taught by Riga) into the packet loss management method taught by Zhou, to allow for the benefit of transmission reliability and energy efficiency (Riga, para. 25).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhou, Wang, and Riga teaches the method of claim 12. Zhou further teaches:
Wherein the obtaining network quality parameters of… [the segment link] on the forwarding path comprises:
Obtaining a network quality parameter set, wherein the network quality parameter set comprises network quality parameters that are of segment links and that are uploaded by… [the sending node]; (para. 67: the sending device measures path status information of each path, such as a packet loss rate, a one-way delay, a two-way delay, a network jitter, and an available bandwidth of each path for transmitting the data stream. And para. 57: The packet-loss-concealment controller of the sending device dynamically determines the packet-loss-concealment policy based on path status information, such as a packet loss rate, a delay, and a network jitter, of the path used to send the data stream.) This shows that the controller gains access to the path information (network quality parameters) via the sending node, meaning that the information must be sent to the controller from the sending node.
And determining the network quality parameters of the segment link on the… [forwarding path] from the network quality parameter set. (And para. 57: The packet-loss-concealment controller of the sending device dynamically determines the packet-loss-concealment policy based on path status information, such as a packet loss rate, a delay, and a network jitter, of the path used to send the data stream.)
However, Zhou only teaches one sending device and only one lane of a link over which the packet loss concealment packet is transmitted. Riga teaches:
A plurality of segment links on the forwarding path, (fig. 1, links between source node 102 and intermediate node 104, between intermediate node 104 and intermediate node 106, and between intermediate node 106 and destination node 108.)
Riga teaches a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (fig. 1, para. 25). When this teaching is applied to the packet loss management method in Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to repeat the method performed at the sending device (first forwarding node) at the receiving device (second forwarding node) for all forwarding nodes in Riga. Additionally, the controller taught by Zhou would similarly be able to obtain network quality parameters for the additional lanes of the link from the forwarding nodes and be able to determine a policy for each link and send that policy to the forwarding node. This would be an obvious modification because it would be necessary for Zhou’s method to perform correctly on Riga’s forwarding nodes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou, Wang, and Riga before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (taught by Riga) into the packet loss management method taught by Zhou, to allow for the benefit of transmission reliability and energy efficiency (Riga, para. 25).
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Zhou, Wang, and Riga teaches the method of claim 12. Zhou further teaches:
wherein the network quality requirement comprises a packet loss rate; (para. 58: In an embodiment, the packet-loss-concealment controller may constrain the path status information of the path based on a set constraint condition, for example, a packet loss rate threshold.)
and wherein the determining a packet loss concealment policy for… [a segment link] based on the network quality requirement and the network quality parameters comprises: determining, based on the packet loss rate in the network quality requirement, a maximum allowed packet loss rate for downlink of the plurality of segment links; (para. 58: In an embodiment, the packet-loss-concealment controller may constrain the path status information of the path based on a set constraint condition, for example, a packet loss rate threshold... to determine the packet loss concealment policy.)
and determining the packet loss concealment policy for… [a segment link] based on the maximum allowed packet loss rate for each segment link and an actual packet loss rate for each segment link and indicated by the network quality parameter. (para. 58: In an embodiment, the packet-loss-concealment controller may constrain the path status information of the path based on a set constraint condition, for example, a packet loss rate threshold... to determine the packet loss concealment policy. And para. 57: The packet-loss-concealment controller of the sending device dynamically determines the packet-loss-concealment policy based on path status information, such as a packet loss rate, a delay, and a network jitter, of the path used to send the data stream, to generate the packet-loss-concealment packet according to the packet-loss-concealment policy.)
However, Zhou only teaches one sending device and only one lane of a link over which the packet loss concealment packet is transmitted. Riga teaches:
A plurality of segment links on the forwarding path, (fig. 1, links between source node 102 and intermediate node 104, between intermediate node 104 and intermediate node 106, and between intermediate node 106 and destination node 108.)
Riga teaches a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (fig. 1, para. 25). When this teaching is applied to the packet loss management method in Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to repeat the method performed at the sending device (first forwarding node) at the receiving device (second forwarding node) for all forwarding nodes in Riga. Additionally, the controller taught by Zhou would similarly be able to obtain network quality parameters for the additional lanes of the link from the forwarding nodes and be able to determine a policy for each link and send that policy to the forwarding node. This would be an obvious modification because it would be necessary for Zhou’s method to perform correctly on Riga’s forwarding nodes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou and Riga before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (taught by Riga) into the packet loss management method taught by Zhou, to allow for the benefit of transmission reliability and energy efficiency (Riga, para. 25).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zhou, Wang, and Riga teaches the method of claim 14. Zhou further teaches:
wherein the determining the packet loss concealment policy for… [a segment link] based on the maximum allowed packet loss rate for… [a] segment link and an actual packet loss rate for… [a] segment link indicated by the network quality parameter comprises:
determining, based on the maximum allowed packet loss rate for… [a] segment link and the actual packet loss rate for… [a] segment link indicated by the network quality parameter, a packet loss concealment policy set corresponding to… [a] segment link…, wherein the packet loss concealment policy set comprises one or more packet loss concealment policies that meet a maximum packet loss rate requirement; (para. 58: In an embodiment, the packet-loss-concealment controller may constrain the path status information of the path based on a set constraint condition, for example, a packet loss rate threshold... to determine the packet loss concealment policy.)
and determining, based on an actual latency of… [a] segment link indicated by the network quality parameter, a packet loss concealment policy with a lowest latency from the packet loss concealment policy set corresponding to… [a] segment link. (para. 57: The packet-loss-concealment controller of the sending device dynamically determines the packet-loss-concealment policy based on path status information, such as… a delay) By selecting a policy based on a delay (latency), it is implied that the policy with the least actual delay will be selected.
However, Zhou only teaches one sending device and only one lane of a link over which the packet loss concealment packet is transmitted. Riga teaches:
A plurality of segment links on the forwarding path, (fig. 1, links between source node 102 and intermediate node 104, between intermediate node 104 and intermediate node 106, and between intermediate node 106 and destination node 108.)
Riga teaches a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (fig. 1, para. 25). When this teaching is applied to the packet loss management method in Zhou, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to repeat the method performed at the sending device (first forwarding node) at the receiving device (second forwarding node) for all forwarding nodes in Riga. Additionally, the controller taught by Zhou would similarly be able to obtain network quality parameters for the additional lanes of the link from the forwarding nodes and be able to determine a policy for each link and send that policy to the corresponding forwarding node. This would be an obvious modification because it would be necessary for Zhou’s method to perform correctly on Riga’s forwarding nodes.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou and Riga before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a plurality of intermediate forwarding nodes (taught by Riga) into the packet loss management method taught by Zhou, to allow for the benefit of transmission reliability and energy efficiency (Riga, para. 25).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Zhou, Wang, and Riga teaches the method of claim 12. Zhou further teaches:
wherein the packet loss concealment policy comprises one or more of an automatic repeat request (ARQ) policy, a forward error correction (FEC) policy, or a multipath retransmission policy. (para. 58: The packet-loss-concealment policy includes ARQ, packet duplication, and FEC. And see para. 74: send the data stream on two paths.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Riga, Wang, and Shinohara (US 20110170491).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zhou, Wang, and Riga teaches the method of claim 16. Zhou further teaches:
… the FEC policy comprises an encoding scheme, a total quantity of packets, and a total quantity of source packets; and (para. 47: Optionally, in an embodiment, the packet-loss-concealment packet further includes a coding parameter of the packet-loss-concealment packet, as shown in FIG. 4. For example, if the packet-loss-concealment policy indicated by the indication information is FEC, the coding parameter of the packet-loss-concealment packet may carry FEC block coding or FEC convolutional coding… In addition, the coding parameter of the packet-loss-concealment may further carry other related parameters, such as a block length and a quantity of redundant packets in the RS coding.)
The multipath retransmission policy comprises a packet retransmission path. (para. 74: send the data stream on two paths. And see para. 50: the packet-loss-concealment packet includes indication information, and the indication information is used to indicate the packet-loss-concealment policy that is for the packet-loss-concealment packet, such as ARQ. And see para. 51: the indication information is further used to indicate an identifier of the path used to send the data stream. And see fig. 4: indication information is the packet header.)
However, Zhou does not teach:
In response to the first packet loss concealment policy is an automatic repeat request (ARQ) policy, the execution parameter comprises a quantity of automatic retransmission times.
In the analogous art of data transmission, Shinohara teaches:
In response to the first packet loss concealment policy is an automatic repeat request (ARQ) policy, the execution parameter comprises a quantity of automatic retransmission times. (para. 68: As a method of acquiring the number of retransmission times of the received data, performed by the eNB 100, through the HARQ processing unit 211, for example, the number of retransmission times may be included in a header of data when the eNB 100 transmits the data, and the HARQ processing unit 211 may acquire the number of retransmission times of the data from the header when the data is received.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhou, Riga, Wang, and Shinohara before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate placing the number of automatic retransmission times into the packet header (when ARQ is being used), taught by Shinohara, into the packet loss management method, taught by the combination of Zhou, Riga, and Wang, to allow for benefits such as reduced processing load and efficient data transmission, when using ARQ (Shinohara, para. 102).
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 JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights