CTNF 18/677,506 CTNF 85632 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite HoQ without further spelling out the acronym . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 8, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Tayyar et al, application no. 2007/0050773, hereinafter known as Tayyar . As to claim 1, Tayyar discloses an apparatus for packet scheduling, the apparatus comprising: a flow type classifier configured to classify a flow by type and to allocate at least one queue to each flow type (Tayyar, Figure 1, packet flow classifier that classify flow types to queue; [0005], QoS guarantees for packets that require priority or urgency) ; and a scheduler configured to calculate finish times of packets in the queue (Tayyar, [0011], determining finish time in terms of timestamps for packets) and to compare finish times of HoQ packets in the queue with each other to output an HoQ packet with an earliest finish time (Tayyar, [0052]-[0053], comparing and using the timestamps of head of packets in queue and one win the minimal timestamp, or earliest finish time are processed first). As to Claim 8, Tayyar discloses wherein one queue is allocated to each flow type, and the queue is a FIFO queue (Tayyar, figure 1, [0005}, FIFO queues to classify packets). As to claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-8 above respectively by Tayyar . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tayyar in view of Joung et al, application no. 2026/0067230, hereinafter known as Joung . As to claim 2, Tayyar discloses the apparatus of claim 2 . Tayyar dicloses multiple sessions with associated packet classifications (Tayyar, [0008]-[0009]). Tayyar does not disclose however Joung discloses wherein the flow type classifier includes a first classifier configured to classify a flow type using service rate, and a second classifier configured to classify the flow type using a maximum burst size (Joung, [0047], classifying according to flow types of service rate and maximum burst size; [0080], table 1 and 2 on page 5, classifying packets according to service rate and maximum packet burst size). 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 teachings of Tayyar to include the limitations of wherein the flow type classifier includes a first classifier configured to classify a flow type using service rate, and a second classifier configured to classify the flow type using a maximum burst size as taught by Joung. Packets are routinely classified into flow types and then queued accordingly in the art where packets that requires QoS routing, priority or urgency, a service rate or taking into consideration metrics such maximum burst size can be processed according each of the packets needs. As to claim 3, Tayyar discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Tayyar does not disclose however Joung discloses wherein the first classifier classifies the flow type into a flow type with a service rate higher than a pre-determined value, and a flow type with a service rate lower than or equal to the pre-determined value (Joung, page 5, table 2 classifies packet with various service rates to predefined values, with higher and lower service rates classified to separate predefined values). 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 teachings of Tayyar to include the limitations of wherein the first classifier classifies the flow type into a flow type with a service rate higher than a pre-determined value, and a flow type with a service rate lower than or equal to the pre-determined value as taught by Joung. Packets are routinely classified into flow types and then queued accordingly in the art where packets that requires QoS routing, priority or urgency, a service rate or taking into consideration metrics such maximum burst size can be processed according each of the packet needs. As to claim 4, Tayyar discloses wherein the first classifier classifies the flow type using QoS priorities (Tayyar, [ 0008]-[0009] multiple sessions with associated packet classifications; [0005], Queue guarantees for packets that require urgency or priority). As to claim 5, Tayyar discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Tayyar does not disclose however Joung discloses wherein the second classifier classifies the flow type into a flow type with a maximum burst size greater than a pre-determined value, and a flow type with a maximum burst size smaller than or equal to the pre-determined value (Joung, page 5, table 1 classifies packet with various maximum burst size into predefined values, with higher and larger and smaller burst size are classified into separate predefined values). 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 teachings of Tayyar to include the limitations of wherein the second classifier classifies the flow type into a flow type with a maximum burst size greater than a pre-determined value, and a flow type with a maximum burst size smaller than or equal to the pre-determined value as taught by Joung. Packets are routinely classified into flow types and then queued accordingly in the art where packets that requires QoS routing, priority or urgency, a service rate or taking into consideration metrics such maximum burst size can be processed according each of the packet needs. As to claim 6, Tayyar discloses wherein the second classifier classifies the flow type using QoS priorities (Tayyar, [ 0008]-[0009] multiple sessions with associated packet classifications; [0005], Queue guarantees for packets that require urgency or priority). As to claim 7, Tayyar discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Tayyar does not disclose however Joung discloses wherein the flow type classifier classifies a flow requiring a service rate and a maximum burst size into a flow type with high priority (Joung, [0052], [0053], further classifying packet according to priority; [0047], classifying according to flow types of service rate and maximum burst size; [0080], table 1 and 2 on page 5, classifying packets according to service rate and maximum packet burst size ). 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 teachings of Tayyar to include the limitations of wherein the flow type classifier classifies a flow requiring a service rate and a maximum burst size into a flow type with high priority as taught by Joung. Packets are routinely classified into flow types and then queued accordingly in the art where packets that requires QoS routing, priority or urgency, a service rate or taking into consideration metrics such maximum burst size can be processed according each of the packets needs. As to claims 10-15, the claims are rejected as applied to claims 2-7 above respectively by Tayyar in view of Joung. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)270-7182. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm. 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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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. /GAUTAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2467 /HASSAN A PHILLIPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/677,506 Page 2 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/677,506 Page 3 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/677,506 Page 4 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/677,506 Page 6 Art Unit: 2467 Application/Control Number: 18/677,506 Page 8 Art Unit: 2467
Prosecution Insights