DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 19 and 21 are cancelled. This Office action is in response to Application 18/710,250 filed on 5/15/2024.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Ishikawa (US 2012/0195201) teaches providing a congestion notification to a device when a bandwidth of a flow sent by the device exceeds a first threshold, and dropping packets from the flow when the bandwidth of the flow exceeds a second threshold. See abstract.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 is directed to a “controller” comprising a “monitor module,” a “determine module,” and an “action module.” However, claim 18 does not recite any hardware. As such, the controller and the modules are software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 is directed to a “computer program” without reciting any hardware or non-transitory computer-readable medium. Although claim 20 recites that the computer program causes a controller to perform steps of monitoring, determining, and performing when it is run on processing circuitry of the controller, neither the controller nor the processing circuitry are necessarily components of claim 20. Instead, claim 20 appears to be directed merely to the computer program itself. Therefore, claim 20 is also directed to software per se.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Gazzetti (US 2019/0280932) in view of Timner (US 2017/0374671).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 18, and 20, Gazzetti teaches a method for handling a traffic flow in a communication system, the method being performed by a controller, the method comprising: monitoring a traffic flow between an application server and a user equipment (A rate manager monitors a data stream between a device and a destination on an external network. See par. 68); determining whether or not the traffic flow fulfils a compliance requirement, the compliance requirement pertaining to a recommended bitrate being maintained for the traffic flow (The rate manager determines whether the device is adhering to a recommended data rate provided by the rate manager. See par. 68); and performing a mitigating action for the traffic flow when the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement (The rate manager performs a mitigation action when it determines that the device is not adhering to the recommended data rate. The mitigation action comprises dropping messages of the data stream. See par. 68).
However, Gazzetti does not teach that the traffic flow is on a bearer in a wireless communication system, the traffic flow being scheduled by a scheduler. Nonetheless, Timner teaches a system for providing a date rate for communication whereby a scheduler is responsible for scheduling data from a data sender on a bearer in a wireless communication system. See par. 33.
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 system of Gazzetti so that the data stream is scheduled on a bearer by a scheduler in a wireless communication system, because doing so allows the system to be used to perform rate control in a wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 3, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the recommended bitrate pertains to an estimated traffic rate of the traffic flow output by the scheduler (Gazzetti teaches that the recommended bitrate is based on network constraints. See par. 58).
Regarding claim 6, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement when the traffic flow is at least a predetermined factor higher than the recommended bitrate for the traffic flow during at least a predetermined amount of time (Gazzetti teaches determining that the device is violating the compliance requirement when the data rate of the data stream exceeds the recommended data rate for some amount of time. See par. 68).
Regarding claim 7, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the traffic flow occupies radio resources, and wherein the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement when the traffic flow occupies more than a predetermined amount of the radio resources during at least a predetermined amount of time (Gazzetti teaches determining that the device is violating the compliance requirement when the data rate of the data stream exceeds the recommended data rate for some amount of time, where the recommended data rate corresponds to an amount of network resources allocated to the device for transmitting the data stream. See par. 68. Timner teaches assigning radio resources for transmitting data over a radio channel. See par. 11. Thus, Timner suggests further modifying the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the allotment of network resources corresponds to an allotment of radio resources because doing so is beneficial for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the traffic flow is associated with a quality of service value, and wherein the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement when the quality of service value of the traffic flow occupies is higher than a predetermined quality value during at least a predetermined amount of time (Gazzetti teaches determining that the device is violating the compliance requirement when the data rate of the data stream exceeds the recommended data rate for some amount of time, where the recommended data rate corresponds to a particular quality of service. See par. 68).
Regarding claim 9, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the mitigating action operates to enforce the recommended bitrate for the traffic flow (Gazzetti teaches that the mitigating action is performed in response to detecting a violation of the recommended data rate. See par. 68).
Regarding claim 10, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the mitigating action comprises discarding some of the packets of the traffic flow (Gazzetti teaches that the mitigation action comprises dropping messages of the data stream. See par. 68).
Regarding claim 11, Gazzetti and Timner teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: stopping discarding said some of the packets of the traffic flow when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement (Gazzetti teaches that messages of the data stream are dropped only while the data stream violates the recommended data rate. See par. 68).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nádas (US 2024/0056401).
Regarding claim 2, Gazzetti and Timner do not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the traffic flow is a low-latency, low-loss, scalable throughput, L4S, traffic flow. However, L4S data streams were known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See Nádas, par. 9.
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 system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the data stream is an L4S data stream, because doing so allows the system to be used to perform rate control of L4S data streams.
Regarding claim 4, Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the estimated traffic rate output by the scheduler is a function of at least one of: power headroom reports, channel quality information reports, radio conditions of the user equipment to, or from, which the L4S traffic flow is to be scheduled, number user equipment to, or from, which the L4S traffic flow is to be scheduled, total share of radio resources available to be scheduled for the user equipment to, or from, which the LAS traffic flow is to be scheduled (Timner teaches determining a recommended data rate based on quality measurements of radio channels. See par. 33. Thus, Timner suggests further modifying the system of Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas so that the recommended data rate is determined based on quality measurements of radio channels, because doing so is beneficial for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because it is unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Brown (US 2006/0050641).
Regarding claim 5, Gazzetti and Timner do not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement when the packets are marked as congested during at least a predetermined amount of time. However, Brown teaches a method of alleviating network congestion whereby the system determines that a device has not taken action to alleviate congestion on a router (i.e., the device has failed a compliance requirement) when the device fails to take the action within a predetermined period of time of a packet from the device being marked as congested. See par. 44-45.
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 system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the device is determined to be not adhering to the recommended data rate when the device fails to conform to the recommended data rate within a predetermined period of time of a message from the device being marked as congested, because doing so gives the device a grace period to conform to the recommended data rate before having its messages dropped.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Alex (US 2015/0289167).
Regarding claim 12, Gazzetti and Timner do not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the bearer is a first bearer having a first scheduling priority in the scheduler, and wherein the mitigating action comprises moving the traffic flow to a second bearer having a second scheduling priority in the scheduler being lower than the first scheduling priority. However, Alex teaches a system for managing policy in a mobile environment, comprising moving a flow from a first bearer to a second bearer having a lower quality of service level than the first bearer. See par. 23, 101.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention do modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the mitigating action comprises moving the data stream from the bearer to another bearer having a lower quality of service level because doing so provides an alternative to dropping or discarding messages belonging to the data stream.
Regarding claim 13, Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the second bearer has same scheduling priority in the scheduler as a mobile broadband, MBB, traffic flow (Alex suggests that the lower quality of service could correspond to a quality of service that is normally provided to MBB traffic – nothing in Alex prevents such a result. See par. 23, 101).
Regarding claim 14, Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises: moving the traffic flow back to the first bearer when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement (Gazzetti teaches only performing the mitigation action while the data stream violates the recommended data rate, which suggests moving the data stream back to the first bearer when the data stream no longer violates the recommended data rate when the system of Gazzetti and Timner is modified to incorporate the bearer moving feature of Alex).
Regarding claim 15, Gazzetti and Timner do not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the bearer has a scheduling priority in the scheduler, and wherein the mitigating action comprises lowering the scheduling priority. However, Alex teaches modifying the quality of service level (i.e. scheduling priority) of a bearer from a first quality of service level to a second quality of service level that is lower than the first quality of service level. See par. 23, 101.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention do modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the mitigating action comprises lowering the quality of service level of the bearer because doing so provides an alternative to dropping or discarding messages belonging to the data stream.
Regarding claim 16, Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teach the method according to claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: increasing the scheduling priority of the bearer when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement (Gazzetti teaches only performing the mitigation action while the data stream violates the recommended data rate (See par. 68), which suggests restoring the quality of service (i.e., scheduling priority) of the bearer when the data stream no longer violates the recommended data rate when the system of Gazzetti and Timner is modified to incorporate the bearer priority reduction feature of Alex).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459