DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. Claims 1–17 and 20 are pending. Claims 18, 19, and 21 have been canceled. No claims have been withdrawn. No claims are objected to. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. No claims are allowable. Claims 1–17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Prior Art
2. Kachrani et al. (US 2019/0104078 A1) discloses declaring a signal degradation only when a pre-forward error correction bit error rate exceeds a first threshold by more than a predetermined margin (more than five percent of the first threshold) and continues to exceed that threshold after a predetermined FEC degrade window has elapsed ([0060] and [0061]).
3. 3GPP TS 36.331 V8.9.0 (2010-04) discloses triggering a measurement report only when a neighbor cell exceeds the serving cell by more than a configured offset (the a3-Offset) plus a hysteresis value, and only when that condition persists throughout a configured time-to-trigger period (clause 5.5.4.4, lines 83–88 and 104–106, and clause 5.5.4.1, lines 24–28 and 33).
4. Fischell et al. (US 8,965,494 B2) discloses issuing a cardiac-event alarm only when an ST-segment shift exceeds a baseline by more than a predetermined percentage of that baseline, such as twenty-five percent, with that percentage-of-baseline threshold changing in proportion as the signal strength changes slowly over time, and only when the shift recurs across at least three electrogram segments separated by preset periods of time, which recurrence ensures the detected event is not a transitory change and avoids false positive detections (col. 12, lines 12–21; col. 24, lines 11–14 and 30–35; col. 28, lines 50–68).
Response to Arguments
5. The arguments of Applicant’s representative filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
6. Rejection of Claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
7. Applicant’s representative has canceled claim 18 and amended claim 20 to recite processing circuitry and a memory comprising instructions. As amended, claim 20 is directed to a controller comprising hardware rather than to a computer program per se, and canceled claim 18 is no longer pending. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
8. Rejection of Claims 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gazzetti and Timner.
9. Applicant’s representative argues that the combination of Gazzetti and Timner fails to teach “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” and “performing a mitigating action for the traffic flow when the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement”. Specifically, Applicant’s representative contends that Gazzetti discloses only a conventional rate-enforcement mechanism that compares a data stream to a configured rate, and does not teach determining whether a traffic flow remains compliant with a wireless-network-derived recommended bitrate, based on the flow’s responsiveness to congestion-control mechanisms and consistent with network resource-control objectives.
10. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite responsiveness to congestion-control mechanisms, network resource-control objectives, or a wireless-network-derived recommended bitrate; claim 1 recites only “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”. Gazzetti teaches this limitation. Gazzetti’s rate manager determines whether the device is adhering to a recommended data rate provided by the rate manager ([0068]), which is a determination of whether a recommended bitrate is being maintained for the traffic flow, and Gazzetti drops messages of the data stream when the device is not adhering to the recommended data rate ([0068]), which is “performing a mitigating action for the traffic flow when the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement”. The Specification is consistent with this scope: dependent claim 6 recites that 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”, that is, when the actual bitrate exceeds the recommended bitrate. This is the same rate-based determination that Applicant’s representative characterizes as conventional. The congestion-marking behavior on which the argument relies is recited only in dependent claim 5, “when the packets are marked as congested during at least a predetermined amount of time”, and accordingly is not a limitation of claim 1. Because the argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, it is not persuasive.
11. Rejection of Claims 3 and 6–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gazzetti and Timner.
12. Applicant’s representative argues that claims 3 and 6–11 overcome the combination of Gazzetti and Timner for the reasons given with respect to claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1.
13. Rejection of Claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas.
14. Applicant’s representative argues that claims 2 and 4 overcome the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas for the reasons given with respect to claim 1, and that Nádas fails to remedy the asserted deficiencies of Gazzetti and Timner. However, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1.
15. Rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gazzetti, Timner, and Brown.
16. Applicant’s representative argues that claim 5 overcomes the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Brown for the reasons given with respect to claim 1, and that Brown fails to remedy the asserted deficiencies of Gazzetti and Timner. However, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1.
17. Rejection of Claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex.
18. Applicant’s representative argues that claims 12–16 overcome the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex for the reasons given with respect to claim 1, and that Alex fails to remedy the asserted deficiencies of Gazzetti and Timner. However, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
19. 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.
20. Claims 1, 3, 6–11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gazzetti et al. (US 2019/0280932 A1; “Gazzetti”) in further view of Timner et al. (US 2017/0374671 A1; “Timner”).
21. Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Gazzetti teaches a method for handling a traffic flow in a wireless communication system, the method being performed by a controller, the method comprising:
22. monitoring a traffic flow … between an application server and a user equipment. Gazzetti teaches a message routing component (530) that monitors the current data rate of each data stream produced by an application (520A–C) executing on a device (1–N), which is a user equipment, the specification listing Internet of Things devices and network-equipped sensors as examples of user equipment; the data stream is forwarded outside the locality to a corresponding remote application on a cloud platform (670), which under its ordinary meaning is the claimed application server ([0068], [0076], and [0077]).
23. 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. Gazzetti teaches that the rate optimizer (560) generates and propagates a recommended data production rate for each data stream ([0069]), and the message routing component (530) identifies violating data streams, i.e., data streams that do not maintain the recommended data rate, based on the monitored current data rate of each data stream ([0068]).
24. performing a mitigating action for the traffic flow when the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement. Gazzetti teaches that the message routing component (530) enforces the recommended data rates by dropping the exceeding messages of the violating data streams ([0068]).
25. However, Gazzetti does not teach that the traffic flow is on a bearer. Nonetheless, Timner teaches that a radio communication is established for each data sending node (200) using an assigned portion of the radio resources of a shared radio link (204) provided by a wireless access network, the shared radio link being the claimed bearer in the wireless communication system ([0033]).
26. Timner further teaches the traffic flow being scheduled by a scheduler. Timner teaches a scheduler (208) that is responsible for assigning the individual radio resources of the shared radio link (204) to the data sending nodes (200) ([0033]).
27. 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 monitored traffic flow is carried on a bearer in a wireless communication system and is scheduled by a scheduler, as taught by Timner, because Timner expressly provides for a rate enforcer that makes sure its recommended data rate is used ([0026]), a function that Gazzetti’s dropping of messages from non-compliant flows supplies, extending Gazzetti’s rate control to traffic carried on a shared radio link where radio resources must be apportioned among multiple communications.
28. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Timner further teaches the recommended bitrate pertains to an estimated traffic rate of the traffic flow output by the scheduler. Timner teaches that the recommended data rate is a fair data rate, i.e., an estimated rate that the data communication can achieve given its assigned share of the radio resources of the shared radio link, that share being assigned by the scheduler (208) ([0027], [0033], and [0038]).
29. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the recommended bitrate pertains to an estimated traffic rate output by the scheduler, because doing so bases the recommended bitrate on the radio resources actually apportioned to the traffic flow by the scheduler, so that the recommended bitrate reflects the capacity available to the flow on the shared radio link.
30. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Gazzetti further teaches 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 that the message routing component (530) treats a data stream as a violating data stream when its data rate exceeds the recommended data rate ([0068] and [0073]).
31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the traffic flow fails the compliance requirement only when its rate exceeds the recommended bitrate by at least a predetermined factor and does so during at least a predetermined amount of time, because requiring a threshold to be exceeded by a predetermined factor and/or for a predetermined amount of time are well-known techniques1 for keeping a threshold-based compliance determination from overreacting to transient excursions, and applying them to Gazzetti’s rate-compliance determination would have kept transient or negligible overages from triggering corrective action.
32. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Timner further teaches the traffic flow occupies radio resources. Timner teaches that each data communication uses radio resources of the shared radio link (204), the current load being indicated by the amount of currently occupied radio resources ([0038]).
33. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the traffic flow occupies radio resources, because doing so accounts for the radio resources consumed by the flow on the shared radio link when controlling its rate.
34. The combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches 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 treating a data stream as a violating data stream when its data rate exceeds its allotted quota ([0068] and [0073]), and Timner teaches that the flow’s quota corresponds to a share of the radio resources of the shared radio link ([0038]); together they teach that the traffic flow fails the compliance requirement when it occupies more than a predetermined portion of the radio resources.
35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the traffic flow fails the compliance requirement only when it occupies more than a predetermined amount of the radio resources during at least a predetermined amount of time, because requiring a threshold to be exceeded by a predetermined factor and/or for a predetermined amount of time are well-known techniques for keeping a threshold-based compliance determination from overreacting to transient excursions, and applying them to the rate-compliance determination of Gazzetti and Timner would have identified flows consuming an excessive share of the limited radio resources without reacting to momentary bursts.
36. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Gazzetti further teaches the traffic flow is associated with a quality of service value. Gazzetti teaches that each application data stream is associated with a data rate that the message routing component (530) monitors, the recommended value of which is derived from the stream’s quality of service policies and priorities ([0068], [0069], and [0070]); under the broadest reasonable interpretation the stream’s data rate is a quality of service value of the traffic flow, a data rate being a value that corresponds to the quality of service the flow receives.
37. Gazzetti further teaches 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 that the message routing component (530) treats a data stream as a violating data stream when its data rate exceeds the stream’s recommended data rate, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is the quality of service value of the traffic flow being higher than a predetermined quality value ([0068] and [0073]).
38. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti and Timner so that the traffic flow fails the compliance requirement only when its quality of service value is higher than a predetermined quality value during at least a predetermined amount of time, because requiring a threshold to be exceeded by a predetermined factor and/or for a predetermined amount of time are well-known techniques for keeping a threshold-based compliance determination from overreacting to transient excursions, and applying them to Gazzetti’s rate-compliance determination would have balanced strict enforcement against tolerance of transient degradations.
39. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Gazzetti further teaches the mitigating action operates to enforce the recommended bitrate for the traffic flow. Gazzetti teaches that the message routing component (530) enforces the recommended data rates by dropping the exceeding messages of a violating data stream ([0068]).
40. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, and Gazzetti further teaches the mitigating action comprises discarding some of the packets of the traffic flow. Gazzetti teaches that the message routing component (530) drops exceeding messages from a violating data stream ([0068]).
41. Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 10, and Gazzetti further teaches stopping discarding said some of the packets of the traffic flow when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement. Gazzetti teaches that the message router (720) drops application messages until the data rates are again within the limits determined by the rate optimizer, and drops messages only from violating data streams, so that dropping ceases once a data stream no longer violates the recommended data rate ([0068] and [0086]).
42. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nádas et al. (US 2024/0056401 A1; “Nádas”).
43. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach the traffic flow is a low-latency, low-loss, scalable throughput, L4S, traffic flow. Nonetheless, Nádas teaches a traffic flow that is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) capable flow, a packet of the flow carrying an L4S value that indicates whether the packet belongs to a flow that is L4S capable ([0032] and [0033]); Nádas handles such L4S flows separately from classic, non-L4S flows ([0038]).
44. 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 traffic flow is a low-latency, low-loss, scalable throughput, L4S, traffic flow, as taught by Nádas, because doing so extends the rate control to L4S traffic, enabling support for services that require both low latency and high throughput.
45. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas teaches the method according to claim 2, and Timner further teaches 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 L4S traffic flow is to be scheduled. Timner teaches that the estimated fair data rate is obtained by multiplying, by a total maximum data rate, an equal share equal to one divided by the number N of communications using the shared radio link, so that the estimated rate is a function of the number of user equipment among which the shared radio link is scheduled, that number of ongoing communications indicating the current load that the rate controlling node obtains from the scheduler ([0038], [0040], and [0051]).
46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti, Timner, and Nádas so that the estimated traffic rate output by the scheduler is a function of the number of user equipment among which the shared radio link is scheduled, because dividing the capacity of the shared radio link among the communications currently using it makes the estimated rate reflect the resources actually available to the traffic flow under the prevailing load, so that the rate can be supported by the shared link without causing disturbances or interruptions.
47. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Brown et al. (US 2006/0050641 A1; “Brown”).
48. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach the traffic flow fails to fulfil the compliance requirement when the packets are marked as congested during at least a predetermined amount of time. Nonetheless, Brown teaches a router that marks a packet as having passed through a moderately congested router and stores the packet’s session identifier with the current time, and that drops subsequent packets of that session once the current time exceeds a transmission time computed from the stored time, i.e., when the sender has failed to react within a predetermined time of the packet being marked as congested ([0044]–[0045]).
49. 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 traffic flow fails the compliance requirement when its packets are marked as congested for at least a predetermined amount of time, as taught by Brown, because doing so affords the traffic flow a grace period to conform to the recommended bitrate before its packets are discarded.
50. Claims 12–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gazzetti and Timner, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Alex et al. (US 2015/0289167 A1; “Alex”).
51. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach the bearer is a first bearer having a first scheduling priority in the scheduler. Nonetheless, Alex teaches a first bearer channel established between a first user device (1028a) and a gateway (1012), the first bearer channel having a first quality of service level that corresponds to the recited scheduling priority ([0095]).
52. Alex further teaches 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. Alex teaches instructing a network element to establish a second bearer channel, assign it a second quality of service level, and move the flow associated with the first bearer channel to the second bearer channel, the first quality of service level being greater than the second quality of service level ([0023] and [0101]).
53. 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 mitigating action comprises moving the traffic flow from a first bearer to a second bearer having a lower scheduling priority, as taught by Alex, because doing so provides an alternative to discarding the packets of the traffic flow.
54. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teaches the method according to claim 12, and Alex further teaches the second bearer has same scheduling priority in the scheduler as a mobile broadband, MBB, traffic flow. Alex teaches assigning the second bearer channel a lower quality of service level ([0023] and [0101]); setting that lower level to the best-effort service level conventionally used for mobile broadband traffic would have been an obvious matter of design choice, for the reasons set forth below.
55. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex so that the second bearer has the same scheduling priority as a mobile broadband traffic flow, because selecting, for the lower quality of service level to which the traffic flow is moved, the best-effort service level conventionally used for mobile broadband traffic is a routine design choice that reuses an existing, lower-priority service class rather than provisioning a new one, and yields the predictable result of scheduling the non-compliant flow at the same low priority as ordinary mobile broadband traffic.
56. Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teaches the method according to claim 12, and the combination of Gazzetti and Alex further teaches moving the traffic flow back to the first bearer when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement. Gazzetti teaches performing the mitigating action only while a data stream is violating the recommended data rate ([0068]), and Alex teaches restoring a bearer to its original quality of service level when the condition that triggered the modification has ended ([0098]); together they teach moving the traffic flow back to the first bearer once the flow again fulfils the compliance requirement.
57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex so that the traffic flow is moved back to the first bearer when it again fulfils the compliance requirement, because doing so restores the traffic flow to its original scheduling priority once it is again compliant, avoiding continued penalization of a compliant flow.
58. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gazzetti and Timner teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach the bearer has a scheduling priority in the scheduler. Nonetheless, Alex teaches a bearer channel having a quality of service level that corresponds to the recited scheduling priority ([0018]).
59. Alex further teaches wherein the mitigating action comprises lowering the scheduling priority. Alex teaches instructing a network element to modify the first bearer channel to a lower, second quality of service level ([0019] and [0023]).
60. 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 mitigating action comprises lowering the scheduling priority of the bearer, as taught by Alex, because doing so provides an alternative to discarding the packets of the traffic flow.
61. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex teaches the method according to claim 15, and the combination of Gazzetti and Alex further teaches increasing the scheduling priority of the bearer when the traffic flow fulfils the compliance requirement. Gazzetti teaches performing the mitigating action only while a data stream is violating the recommended data rate ([0068]), and Alex teaches restoring a bearer to its higher, original quality of service level when the triggering condition has ended ([0098]); together they teach increasing the scheduling priority of the bearer once the traffic flow again fulfils the compliance requirement.
62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Gazzetti, Timner, and Alex so that the scheduling priority of the bearer is increased when the traffic flow again fulfils the compliance requirement, because doing so restores the bearer’s original scheduling priority once the flow is again compliant, avoiding continued penalization of a compliant flow.
Conclusion
63. 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).
64. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
65. 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.
66. 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
1 See the Other Prior Art section for a discussion of these well-known techniques.
Prosecution Insights