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 .
Detailed Action
2. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 39-41, 46-48, 60, and 61 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
3. In response to the restriction made on 12/29/2025, applicant has elected Invention I claims (1-3, 8-10, 39-41, 46-48, 60, and 61), with traverse.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. As Examiner stated in the previous office action that there would be a serious search and examination burden if the restriction is not required.
4. Applicant’s argument states the subject matter of claims 8 and 14 clearly overlap and are not mutually exclusive at least because claim 8 (invention I) recites transmitting a message including "parameter information for modifying a congestion notification
In response
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because claim 8 does not require to detecting packet queue delay information related to said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow indicative of a congestion level; and determining said congestion notification marking rate to be applied to said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow based on said packet queue delay information, a general congestion notification marking rule, and said parameter information. On the other hand, claim 14, does not require to transmit, towards a congestion notification marking responsible entity, a second message including said parameter information. In other words, the detection of queue delay and the determination of the making rate use the delay information are entirely absent from claim 8. Conversely, claim 14 does not require transmitting any message to congestion notification message to a congestion notification marking responsible entity. The presence of overlapping of generic language (“parameter information)” does not erase this critical, claim-defining differences Furthermore, the applicant’s own table argument is incomplete, the fact that both claims uses the same phrase “parameter information” for modifying a congestion notification marking rate, the remain limitation create distinctness. Claim 8 ends with transmission of that information, claim 14 uses the information on the three inputs to compute a rate based on measured delay. These are different inventions. Therefore, the applicant’s traverse is unpersuasive because it ignores the critical claim-defining limitations that separate Invention I form Invention II.
The argument presented with claims 46 and 52 appear similar in nature to argument address above. Accordingly, the response remains the same as the response to above (response #4).
5. Applicant’s argument states that the subject matter of claims 9 and 16 clearly overlap and are not mutually exclusive at least because claim 9 (invention I) recites that the transmitted message includes "validity time information associated with said parameter information" and recites the "validity time information being indicative of a validity time of said parameter information," while claim 16 (invention II) recites that the received message includes "validity time information associated with said parameter information" with the "validity time information" being recited using identical language to claim 9.
In response,
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. The above argument, like the earlier argument on claims 8 and 14, ignores the fundamental and claim-defining difference that flow from their respective independent claims. The fact that the dependent claims share a common limitation does not erase the distinctiveness of the inventions as a whole. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 (invention I). Claim 8 recites “a method, comprising: receiving, from an application function entity, a first message including parameter information for modifying a congestion notification marking rate to be applied to a first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, and transmitting, towards a congestion notification marking responsible entity, a second message including said parameter information.” Claim 9 adds that the first and second messages include validity time information. Claim 9 does not require detecting packet queue delay information or determining marking rate based on such delay. The validity time is merely an attribute of the transmitted parameter information.
Claim 16 depends from claim 14 (invention II). Claim 14 recites “method, comprising receiving, from a network entity, a message including parameter information for modifying a congestion notification marking rate to be applied to a first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow; detecting packet queue delay information related to said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow indicative of a congestion level; and determining said congestion notification marking rate to be applied to said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow based on said packet queue delay information, a general congestion notification marking rule, and said parameter information.” Claim 16 adds that the received message includes validity time information and further requires enabling or disabling consideration or the parameter information based on whether it is valid at the current time. MPEP §806.05 (c ) expressly permits restriction between dependent claims are themselves distinct. The examine has already established that independent claims 8 and 14 are distinct. Dependent claims 9 and 16 are merely add further limitation to tier respect independent claims . The shared “validity time” language does not transform distinct invention into one. The applicant’s traverse on claims 9 and 16 is unpersuasive because it improperly elevates a single common limitation over all other claims differences. The independent claims remain distinct and the dependent claims inherit that distinctness. Further, the serious burden argument is unsupported contrary to the classification and technical realities of the case.
The argument presented with dependent claims 47 and 54 appear similar in nature to argument address above. Accordingly, the response remains the same as the response to above (response #5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 8-10, 39-41, 46-48 and 60-61 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.
8. Regarding claims 1,8,39,46, and 60-61 the claims limitation recites “parameter information”, which fails to clearly define the nature of boundaries of the claimed invention, and it is unclear whether the phrase refers to a value, threshold, number etc., The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
9. Further, claims 1,8,39,46, and 60-61 recite the phrase: “congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, it is unclear because the claims do not define what makes a traffic flow “marking enabled.” The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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)(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.
11. Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 39-40,46,48 and 60-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haddad et al. ( US 20260005973 A1) hereinafter Haddad.
Regarding claims 1,8,39,46, and 60-61, Haddad discloses a method comprising:
deciding, for a first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, parameter information for modifying a congestion notification marking rate to be applied to said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow (see para [0064] parameter, i.e. the SOR message may identify a set of QoS parameters including one or more of latency, throughput (e.g., a guaranteed/best effort bandwidth), bit error rate, packet loss rate, jitter, out-of-order delivery, corrupted data, incomplete data, undecodable/unreadable data, and/or other data processing measurements for a PDU session…[ 0024] L4S on Internet nodes will be responsible of explicitly signaling congestion to endpoints by “marking” data packets. Such marking would allow endpoints to re-adjust their congestion window(s) and transmission rates to keep in-network below a certain capacity. [0054] as determined by the network node 202, cause an expected queueing latency to reach a certain value, and a maximum threshold (over which all packets in the queue are marked) to mark packets when the queue size of the L4S queue may cause the expected queueing latency to reach a higher value. When the queue size of the L4S queue is determined to cause the queueing latency in between the two values, the marking is based on a probability that depends on the queue size. [0045]…both L4S and classic congestion control uses explicit congestion notification (ECN) that manages and notifies network congestion. The ECN uses two bits in the header of a packet to notify the presence of congestion. [0067] At reference 310, based on the received request, UPF(s) 130 enable a queue that is dedicated to the application or one or more data flows within the application corresponding to the SOR message (e.g., the queue may be the L4S queue 222). The queue is enabled in a network node implementing UPF(s) 130. When a network congestion is detected at UPF(s) 310, UPF(s) 310 marks packets within the dedicated queue, e.g., with codepoint CE. [0049] the sending node is scalable node 212, which signals that packets transmitted from it support L4S by indicating ECT(1) in a packet header of an outgoing packet to network node 202. Classifier 242 within network node 202 recognizes the packet as a L4S packet when it inspects the ECN coding. The packet is then stored in a dedicated queue for L4S packets 222 (L4S queue). When a congestion happens, the congestion is signaled by network node 202 at L4S active queue management (AQM) ECN marking 236, where the ECN coding of the packet is changed to indicate CE. The packet is then scheduled to be transmitted at conditional priority scheduler 244, which transmits the packet to a subsequent receiving node. [0050] Classifier 242 within network node 202 recognizes the packet as a L4S packet when it inspects the ECN coding. The packet is then stored in a dedicated queue for L4S packets 222 (L4S queue). When a congestion happens, the congestion is signaled by network node 202 at L4S active queue management (AQM) ECN marking 236, where the ECN coding of the packet is changed to indicate CE. The packet is then scheduled to be transmitted at conditional priority scheduler 244, which transmits the packet to a subsequent receiving node); and
transmitting, towards a network entity, a message including said parameter information [0050] When a congestion happens, the congestion is signaled by network node 202 at L4S active queue management (AQM) ECN marking 236, where the ECN coding of the packet is changed to indicate CE. The packet is then scheduled to be transmitted at conditional priority scheduler 244, which transmits the packet to a subsequent receiving node. [0067]-[0069] At reference 310, based on the received request, UPF(s) 130 enable a queue that is dedicated to the application or one or more data flows within the application corresponding to the SOR message (e.g., the queue may be the L4S queue 222). The queue is enabled in a network node implementing UPF(s) 130. When a network congestion is detected at UPF(s) 310, UPF(s) 310 marks packets within the dedicated queue, e.g., with codepoint CE. [0068] UPF(s) 130 may also notify other network entities about the SOR message so that other network entities on the user plane may enable dedicated queues for the application or one or more data flows within the application corresponding to the SOR message. UPF(s) 130 do so as they deal with the management of QoS, routing, and forwarding of user data).
Regarding claims 2 and 40, claim 1 is incorporated. Haddad further discloses wherein: in relation to said deciding, the method further comprises determining said parameter information based on at least one of the following: an application type of an application causing said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, a characteristic of said application causing said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, a number of congestion notification marking enabled traffic flows, including said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, existing at the same time, an expected duration of a present congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow existence scenario, a user selection in relation to said application causing said first congestion notification marking enabled traffic flow, or application layer forward error correction related information (para. [0049]-[0050],[0064] At reference 302, end user device 146 may transmit a session optimization request (SOR) message with parameters, through base station 152 to reach AMF 134. The SOR message may identify a set of QoS parameters including one or more of latency, throughput (e.g., a guaranteed/best effort bandwidth), bit error rate, packet loss rate, jitter, out-of-order delivery, corrupted data, incomplete data, undecodable/unreadable data, and/or other data processing measurements for a PDU session. Additionally, the SOR message may also specify a set of flow parameters, such as an application for which the PDU session is established, or one or more data flows within the application for which the QoS parameters are to be applied. Furthermore, the flow parameters may also specify a duration during which the QoS parameters are to be applied to the application or one or more data flows within the application. An application may be identified with an application identifier (ID), user ID, and/or another identification; and data flows within the application may be identified through 5-tuple (source IP address/port number, destination IP address/port number and the protocol in use), 3-tuple (source IP address, source port number, and protocol number), or another way to differentiate each data flow [0067] 0067] At reference 310, based on the received request, UPF(s) 130 enable a queue that is dedicated to the application or one or more data flows within the application corresponding to the SOR message (e.g., the queue may be the L4S queue 222). The queue is enabled in a network node implementing UPF(s) 130. When a network congestion is detected at UPF(s) 310, UPF(s) 310 marks packets within the dedicated queue, e.g., with codepoint CE).
Regarding claims 10 and 48, claim 8 is incorporated. Haddad further discloses wherein said parameter information includes multiplier information or percentage information, or said parameter information includes congestion level information (0054]-[0055] to mark packets when a queue size of the L4S queue may, as determined by the network node 202, cause an expected queueing latency to reach a certain value, and a maximum threshold (over which all packets in the queue are marked) to mark packets when the queue size of the L4S queue may cause the expected queueing latency to reach a higher value. [0055] The threshold values, while reflecting/indicating the queue sizes of the L4S queue in bits/bytes stored within the queue, are often measured based on the link rate of the network node and the thresholds are thus indicated in microseconds to a few milliseconds of queuing latency (e.g., a minimum threshold of 800 μs and a maximum threshold of 5 ms), and the one or more thresholds may be additionally based on a round trip time (RTT) for the packet transmission between transmitting a packet and receiving acknowledgement from receiving the packet (e.g., queueing latency of 0.17 RTT) as proposed in the IETF draft entitled “DualQ Coupled AQMs for Low Latency, Low Loss and Scalable Throughput (L4S).” The thresholds in time can be converted to corresponding thresholds in bits/bytes (e.g., duration*line rate=bits/bytes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
13. 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 of this title, 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.
14. Claims 3. 9, 41and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad et al. ( US 20260005973 A1) hereinafter Haddad in view of Burroughs et al. (US 20210203606 A1) hereinafter Burroughs
Regarding claims 3. 9, 41and 47, claim 1 is incorporated. Haddad may not explicitly disclose wherein said message includes validity time information associated with said parameter information, said validity time information being indicative of a validity time of said parameter information. However, Burroughs discloses wherein said message includes validity time information associated with said parameter information, said validity time information being indicative of a validity time of said parameter information (para. [0210] determining that a TCP connection is eligible for sampling when its congestion avoidance algorithm is in the congestion avoidance stage and the congestion window has increased to the point that a maximum currently available channel throughput (a “bottleneck throughput”) is reached, causing a congestion event to occur; [0211] when the connection is eligible, estimating the bottleneck throughput based on the TCP congestion parameters at the time the congestion event occurred (such as a size of the congestion window, a round trip latency of the connection, or both); [0212] determining the validity of the estimated bottleneck throughput according to properties of the TCP connection, such as the size of the TCP data stream, whether the connection is bottlenecked by a peer's receive window, whether the connection dropped into the slow-start stage, a congestion-control algorithm parameter, or combinations thereof; and [0213] when the estimated bottleneck throughput is determined to be valid, integrating the estimated bottleneck throughput into a cell congestion profile).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haddad and include wherein said message includes validity time information associated with said parameter information, said validity time information being indicative of a validity time of said parameter information using the teaching of Burroughs. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce contention for the network resources at the cell site, thus increases the available network resources to the larger more persistent sessions.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Mendaye whose telephone number is (571)272-2603. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7:00 am-5:00pm 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on (571) 272-4001. 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.
04/29/2026
/KIDEST MENDAYE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights