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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 21 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims states “wherein the one or more circuits are to:”, which is an improper sentence fragment. A suggestion would be to add the verb “programmed” so it becomes “wherein the one or more circuits are programmed to:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 16
The claims recite “in a given time period”. The claim is not clear as to which time period, as there is already a first time period, as defined in the independent claim and claims 4 and 18, or, if it’s a third time period, as defined later by claims 9, 10, 20, and 21. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has assumed that it’s the same as the first time period, as defined by the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Szilagyi (Pub.: No.: US 20170373950 A1, hereafter “Szilagyi”).
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 12
Szilagyi teaches a system and method comprising
A system, comprising: an interface (Szilagyi Fig. 27: 18) to send and receive packets (Szilagyi Fig. 27: 16) of a plurality of network flows (Szilagyi Fig. 27: 22); and one or more circuits (Szilagyi Fig. 27: 10; Szilagyi teaches an interface for measuring communication systems, coupled to processing circuitry, See Fig. 27) to: track (Szilagyi ¶0070: executed by the CE agents) a connection status (Szilagyi ¶0070: QoS measurements) of each of the network flows (Szilagyi ¶0070: TCP flows; Szilagyi teaches a QoS measurement that’s executed by CE agents for TCP flows, see ¶0070); operate a flow aging process (Szilagyi ¶0070: measuring the delay) to identify idle network flows (Szilagyi ¶0070: monitoring) of the network flows (Szilagyi ¶0070: monitoring the RRT of the TCP connections; Szilagyi teaches measuring the RTT for the TCP connections, see ¶0070); in one stage of the flow aging process (Szilagyi Fig. 12: TCP ACK segment), assign first network flows of the plurality of network flows having a non-terminated connection status (Szilagyi ¶0071: monitoring the sequence) to a waiting pool (Szilagyi ¶0071: ACK numbers in each connection) for a first time period (Szilagyi Fig. 12: detect loss), wherein at the end of the first time period second network flows of the first network flows have the non-terminated connection status (Szilagyi ¶0071: An out-of-order segment indicates one or more losses at the upstream network segment), and third network flows of the first network flows have a terminated connection status (Szilagyi ¶0071: end-to-end round-trip time; Szilagyi teaches a part of the TCP ACK segment, the system monitoring the connection to detect loss by counting the ACK results from counting and an additional status generated by the end-to-end round-trip time, See Fig. 12 and ¶0071); in another stage of the flow aging process (Szilagyi Fig 12: update per-flow measurements), after completion of the first time period (Szilagyi Fig. 12: TCP ACK segment is before update per-flow measurements), assign per-flow packet counters to perform packet counting of the second network flows (Szilagyi ¶0078: KPIs corresponding to the request/response or data/ACK pocket pairs; Szilagyi teaches generating a KPI responding to the metaknowledge generated from the packet information, see Fig. 12 and ¶0078); and release resources associated with the idle network flows (Szilagyi ¶0078: distribute the measured KPIs).
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 13
Szilagyi teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Szilagyi teaches
wherein a number of the packets of the first network flows (Szilagyi ¶0071: counting the number of retransmissions) assigned to the waiting pool (Szilagyi ¶0071: ACK numbers in each connection) are not counted during the first time period (Szilagyi ¶0071: counting lags behind with on RTT; Szilagyi teaches one counting process being lagged behind, and not included, see ¶0071).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szilagyi (Pub. No.: US 20170373950 A1, hereafter “Szilagyi”) in view of Park (Pub. No.: US 20130194952 A1, hereafter “Park”).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 14
Szilagyi teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 1. Szilagyi does not explicitly teach
identify fourth network flows of the second network flows for which no packets have been counted by respective ones of the per-flow packet counters during a second time period starting from a time that the per-flow packet counters were assigned to perform the packet counting of the second network flows; and assign the fourth network flows to a wait-to-die pool and assign a first per-pool packet counter to perform packet counting of the fourth network flows.
However, Park teaches
identify fourth network flows (Park ¶0075: ACK packet to a transmitted TCP packet fails to be received) of the second network flows for which no packets have been counted (Park Fig. 9: 910) by respective ones of the per-flow packet counters (Park Fig. 9: 920) during a second time period (Park ¶0076: predetermined critical value) starting from a time that the per-flow packet counters were assigned to perform the packet counting of the second network flows (Park ¶0076: determine a current channel status; Park teaches a TCP response to a specific lost ACK packet for a predetermined critical value and determining a current channel status, see Fig. 9 and ¶0075-¶0076); and assign (Park Fig. 9: 940, Control Congestion) the fourth network flows to a wait-to-die pool (Park Fig. 9: 940, Control Congestion) and assign a first per-pool packet counter to perform packet counting of the fourth network flows (Park ¶0078: execute a congestion control; Park teaches activating Control Congestion on the channel with the lost packet, see Fig. 9 and ¶0078);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi by way of Park, to include an element that teaches a TCP response to a specific lost ACK packet for a predetermined critical value and determining a current channel status and activating Control Congestion on the channel with the lost packet, as taught by Park in Fig. 9 and ¶0075-¶0078, to improve packet loss detection and management by enabling limited timeout connections and thereby reducing connections.
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 19
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 3. Park further teaches
identify that at least one packet has been counted (Park ¶0073: comparing a last stored channel status value) by the first per-pool packet counter assigned to perform the packet counting of the fourth network flows of the wait-to-die pool (Park Fig. 9: 940, Control Congestion; Park teaches comparing a last known stored channel status value while performing control congestion, see Fig. 9 and ¶0073); and assign additional per-flow packet counters to perform packet counting of the fourth network flows (Park Fig. 9: 940, Control Congestion 940), responsively to identifying (Park ¶0073: last stored channel status value is greater than the predetermined critical value) that the at least one packet has been counted by the first per-pool packet counter assigned to perform the packet counting of the fourth network flows of the wait-to-die-pool (Park ¶0073: congestion control executing a congestion control; Park teaches using congestion control executing a congestion control to check for packet value comparison to the last known information and also comparing to a known critical value, see Fig. 9 and ¶0073).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi by way of Park, to include an element that teaches comparing a last known stored channel status value while performing control congestion and using congestion control executing a congestion control to check for packet value comparison to the last known information and also comparing to a known critical value, as taught by Park in Fig. 9 and ¶0073, to improve packet loss detection and management by enabling limited timeout connections and thereby reducing connections.
Claim(s) 4, 9-10, 15, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szilagyi (Pub. No.: US 20170373950 A1, hereafter “Szilagyi”) in view of Park (Pub. No.: US 20130194952 A1, hereafter “Park”), further in view of Haumont (Pub. No.: US 20040071086 A1, hereafter “Haumont”).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 15
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 3. Szilagyi in view of Park does not explicitly teach
assign only four of the fourth network flows to the wait-to-die pool.
However, Haumont teaches
assign only four (Haumont ¶0075: four) of the fourth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: traffic classes C1, C2, C3, and C4) to the wait-to-die pool (Haumont ¶0075: Control Congestion; Haumont teaches for separate traffic classes assigned to control congestion, see ¶0075).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Haumont, to include an element that teaches for separate traffic classes assigned to control congestion, as taught by Haumont in ¶0075, to improve communication systems by allowing a different priority of different traffic classes wherein controlling congestion can be followed through for an optimizing result.
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 20
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 8. Haumont teaches
identify sixth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: traffic class C1) of the fourth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: traffic classes) for which no packets have been counted by respective ones of the additional per-flow packet counters (Haumont ¶0075: three threshold levels) during a third time period (Haumont ¶0073: weighted moving average) starting from a time that the additional per-flow packet counters were assigned to perform the packet counting of the fourth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: average que length; Haumont teaches having two traffic classes from the four traffic classes, wherein each has multiple distinct threshold levels with an average, or expected, que length, see ¶0073-¶0075); and assign the sixth network flows to another wait-to-die pool (Haumont ¶0075: second buffer) and assign a third per-pool packet counter to perform packet counting of the sixth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: buffer threshold value; Haumont teaches a second buffer within the traffic classes with a unique buffer threshold, see ¶0075).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Haumont, to include an element that teaches having two traffic classes from the four traffic classes, wherein each has multiple distinct threshold levels with an average, or expected, que length and a second buffer within the traffic classes with a unique buffer threshold, as taught by Haumont in ¶0073-¶0075, to improve communication systems by allowing a different priority of different traffic classes wherein controlling congestion can be followed through for an optimizing result.
Regarding Claim 10 and Claim 21
Szilagyi in view of Park further in view of Haumont teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 9. Haumont teaches
identify at least one seventh network flow (Haumont ¶0075: traffic class C2) of the fourth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: arranged of four traffic classes) for which at least one packet has been counted (Haumont ¶0075: accepted by the second buffer) by respective ones of the additional per-flow packet counters during the third time period starting from the time that the additional per-flow packet counters were assigned to perform the packet counting of the fourth network flows (Haumont ¶0075: average que length; Haumont teaches a subset of the traffic classes having a secondary buffer that contains an average que length, see ¶0075); and assign the at least one seventh network flow to a wait-and-watch pool (Haumont ¶0075: second buffer) and assign at least one per-flow fourth packet counter to perform packet counting of the at least one seventh network flow (Haumont ¶0075: early detection level thresholds, e.g. categories of time periods, see ¶0081; Haumont teaches the second buffer containing an early detection level threshold, e.g. different categories of time periods, see ¶0075-¶0081).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Haumont, to include an element that teaches a subset of the traffic classes having a secondary buffer that contains an average que length and the second buffer containing an early detection level threshold, e.g. different categories of time periods, as taught by Haumont in ¶0075-¶0081, to improve communication systems by allowing a different priority of different traffic classes wherein controlling congestion can be followed through for an optimizing result.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szilagyi (Pub. No.: US 20170373950 A1, hereafter “Szilagyi”) in view of Park (Pub. No.: US 20130194952 A1, hereafter “Park”), further in view of Guo (Pub. No.: US 20220255866 A1, hereafter “Guo”).
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 16
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 3. Szilagyi in view of Park does not explicitly teach
release resources associated with the fourth network flows responsively to no packets being counted in a given time period by the first per-pool packet counter assigned to perform packet counting of the fourth network flows of the wait-to-die pool.
However, Guo teaches
release resources associated with the fourth network flows responsively to no packets being counted (Guo ¶0049: first threshold range) in a given time period (Guo ¶0049: congestion control) by the first per-pool (Guo ¶0049: buffer area) packet counter assigned to perform packet counting of the fourth network flows of the wait-to-die pool (Guo ¶0049: a first counter; Guo teaches a threshold range being used for congestion control, with an associated buffer area and a counter for the buffer area, see ¶0049).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Guo, to include an element that teaches a threshold range being used for congestion control, with an associated buffer area and a counter for the buffer area, as taught by Guo in ¶0049, to improve various transmission characteristics and improve real-time performance while reducing unreliable transmissions.
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 17
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 3. Guo teaches
identify at least one fifth network flow (Guo ¶0051: another terminal) of the second network flows for which at least one packet has been counted (Guo ¶0051: second time threshold range) by respective ones of the per-flow packet counters (Guo ¶0049: second counter simultaneously) during the second time period starting from the time that the per-flow packet counters were assigned to perform the packet counting of the second network flows (Guo ¶0051: second time threshold range; Guo teaches another terminal being used with a second time threshold range while a second counter runs simultaneously, see ¶0049-¶0051); and assign the at least one fifth network flow to a wait-and-watch pool (Guo ¶0051: present congestion threshold) and assign at least one second per-flow packet counter to perform packet counting (Guo ¶0051: adjusted according to the link delay) of the at least one fifth network flow (Guo ¶0051: another terminal; Guo teaches adjusting the congestion threshold according to a link for another terminal, see ¶0051).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Guo, to include an element that teaches another terminal being used with a second time threshold range while a second counter runs simultaneously and adjusting the congestion threshold according to a link for another terminal, as taught by Guo in ¶0049-¶0051, to improve various transmission characteristics and improve real-time performance while reducing unreliable transmissions.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 18
Szilagyi in view of Park further in view of Guo teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 6. Park teaches
release resources (Park ¶0073: execute a timeout event) associated with a given flow of the at least one fifth network flow (Park ¶0073: for a TCP connection) responsively to no packets being counted in a given time period (Park ¶0073: timeout) by a given counter of the at least one second per-flow packet counter (Park ¶0073: predetermined period) assigned to perform packet counting of the given flow (Park ¶0073: critical value) of the at least one fifth network flow of the wait-and-watch pool (Park ¶0073: a TCP connection; Park teaches executing a timeout event for a TCP connection during a predetermined period due to a critical value, see ¶0073).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi by way of Park, to include an element that teaches executing a timeout event for a TCP connection during a predetermined period due to a critical value, as taught by Park in ¶0073, to improve packet loss detection and management by enabling limited timeout connections and thereby reducing connections.
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szilagyi (Pub. No.: US 20170373950 A1, hereafter “Szilagyi”) in view of Park (Pub. No.: US 20130194952 A1, hereafter “Park”) further in view of Wang (Pub. No.: US 20250233809 A1, hereafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 11 and Claim 22
Szilagyi in view of Park teaches a system and method comprising the method and system as explained above in Claim 3. Szilagyi in view of Park does not explicitly teach
the first time period is between 1 and 3 seconds; and the second time period is between 1 and 5 seconds.
However, Wang teaches
the first time period (Wang ¶0036: generating records at predetermined time intervals) is between 1 and 3 seconds (Wang ¶0036: three seconds; Wang teaches generating network traffic records within a predetermined time interval, such as three seconds, see ¶0036); and the second time period (Wang ¶0036: two or more records generated) is between 1 and 5 seconds (Wang ¶0036: five seconds; Wang teaches a second record being generated that could be five seconds long, see ¶0036).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Szilagyi in view of Park by way of Wang, to include an element that teaches generating network traffic records within a predetermined time interval, such as three seconds and a second record being generated that could be five seconds long, as taught by Wang in ¶0036, to improve location-based network cost techniques improve the flow record generation thereby improving the quality of service to exchange communication and reduce storage location costs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/JEFFREY M RUTKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights