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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Amendment filed on 03 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remakrs, filed 03 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, and 17-18 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shafin.
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) 1-3, 9, 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20230379749-A1 to Canpolat et al. (“Canpolat”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20250159725-A1 to Shafin et al. (“Shafin”).
As to claim 1, Canpolat disclose(s) a method comprising:
receiving, by an Access Point , a Stream Classification Service request from a station for a peer-to-peer traffic flow, the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprising a flow identifier for the peer-to-peer traffic flow and Quality of Service resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow; (Canpolat; Fig. 13, step 1302; STA sends AP a Stream Classicization Service Request frame; that includes SCS descriptor element; that includes QoS and SCSID; Fig. 7; SCS ID teaches a flow identifier)
and determining, by the AP, whether to grant the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow, wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprises: (Canpolat; Fig. 13, step 1304; response indicates whether QoS setup successful)
determining that a network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier received in the SCS request, and determining that the AP can support the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow. (Canpolat; network policy for QoS setup verified; [0026]; decision to admit or reject based on availability of resources at the AP [0069]; the SCS ID is in the request; See [0020];[0024])
Canpolat discloses peer flows requests and P2P. (Canpolat ; [0113])
Shafin discloses SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow. (Shafin; [0078];[0081])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the suggested P2P of Shafin and the steam classification of Canpolat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with SCS requests. Using the suggested P2P requests of Shafin were well known to those of skill in the art at the time of invention.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 2, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein the flow identifier comprises one or more of:
a traffic classifier of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a device identifier for each peers of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a category of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a type of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, an application identifier of an application associated with the peer-to-peer traffic flow. (Canpolat; traffic classification field; [0019] see also fig. 7)
As to claim 3, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier comprises:
determining the network policy associated with the flow identifier, and verifying that the network policy associated with the flow identifier allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow. (Canpolat; verify network policy; [0026])
As to claim 9, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) a system comprising:
a memory storage;
and a processing unit disposed in a first computing device and coupled to the memory storage, wherein the processing unit is operative to:
receive a Stream Classification Service request from a station for a peer-to-peer traffic flow, the SCS request comprising a flow identifier for the peer-to-peer traffic flow and Quality of Service resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow;
and determine whether to grant the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow, wherein the processing unit being operative to determine whether to grant the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprises the processing unit being operative to:
determine that a network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier received in the SCS request, and determine that an Access Point can support the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the flow identifier comprises one or more of:
a traffic classifier of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a device identifier for each peers of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a category of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, a type of the peer-to-peer traffic flow, an application identifier of an application associated with the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 17, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising:
receiving, by an Access Point , a Stream Classification Service request from a station for a peer-to-peer traffic flow, the SCS request for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprising a flow identifier for the peer-to-peer traffic flow and Quality of Service resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow;
and determining, by the AP, whether to grant the SCS request, wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request received in the SCS request comprises:
determining that a network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier received in the SCS request, and determining that the AP can support the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 18, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein determining that the network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier comprises:
determining the network policy associated with the flow identifier, and verifying that the network policy associated with the flow identifier allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection to claim 2.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20230315295-A1 to Chandrashekaraiah et al. (“Chandrashekaraiah”).
As to claim 4, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein determining that the AP can support the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprises determining that the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow is below a predetermined threshold.
Chandrashekaraiah discloses determining that the AP can support the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow comprises determining that the QoS resource requested for the peer-to-peer traffic flow is below a predetermined threshold. (Chandrashekaraiah; reject requests with QoS is below a threshold; [0040])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the QoS threshold of Chandrashekaraiah and the QoS of Canpolat-Shafin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with QoS. Using the threshold of Chandrashekaraiah would allow for requests of Canpolat-Shafin accepted if there are enough resources.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20210219186-A1 to Canpolat’186 et al. (“Canpolat’186”).
As to claim 5, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request comprises:
rejecting the SCS request in response to determining that the network policy does not allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier; (Canpolat; network policy for QoS setup verified; [0026])
But does not expressly disclose providing a SCS response to the station, the SCS response comprising a reason code for rejection of the SCS request.
Canpolat’186 discloses providing a SCS response to the station, the SCS response comprising a reason code for rejection of the SCS request. (Canpolat’186; status code and reason code; table [0163]))
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the reason code of Canpolat’186 and the response of Canpolat-Shafin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with QoS Stream Classification Service requests. Using the reason code of Canpolat’186 would allow further requests to be adjusted.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin.
As to claim 6, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose further comprising:
providing a suggested flow identifier that is allowed by the network policy for the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
Shafin discloses providing a suggested flow identifier that is allowed by the network policy for the peer-to-peer traffic flow. (Shafin; suggests alternative set of SCS parameters; [0082])
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the suggested SCS of Shafin and the responses of Canpolat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with SCS requests. Using the suggested SCS of Shafin would allow for future requests to be adjusted to be accepted by the AP.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 7, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving another SCS request from the station, the another SCS request comprising the suggested flow identifier. (Shafin; second SCS request frame with suggested parameters; [0082])
As to claim 11, Canpolat disclose(s) the system of claim 10,
But does not expressly disclose wherein the device identifier comprises a media access control address or a mobile device management key.
Shafin discloses the device identifier comprises a media access control address or a mobile device management key. (Shafin; MAC addresses included in the request frame; [0089]
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20140112264-A1 to Bao et al. (“Bao”).
As to claim 8, Canpolat-Shafin disclose(s) the method of claim 1,
But does not expressly disclose wherein receiving the SCS request comprises receiving the SCS request comprising a plurality of flow identifiers corresponding to a plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flow, and wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request comprises:
determining to grant a subset of peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows;
and determining to reject a remaining peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows.
Bao discloses wherein receiving the SCS request comprises receiving the SCS request comprising a plurality of flow identifiers corresponding to a plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flow, and (Bao; request includes single of multiple service flows and requirements for each flow; [0143])
wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request comprises:
determining to grant a subset of peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows; (Canpolat; decision to admit or reject based on availability of resources at the AP [0069] )
and determining to reject a remaining peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows. Canpolat; decision to admit or reject based on availability of resources at the AP [0069] )
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the multiple flows per request of Bao and the requests of Canpolat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with requesting service flows. Combining the multiple flow requests of Bao would allow for flow requests to be more efficient by using a single request for many flows.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 12, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the SCS request comprises a plurality of flow identifiers corresponding to a plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flow, and wherein the processing unit being operative to determine whether to grant the SCS request comprises the processing unit being operative to:
determine to grant a subset of peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows;
and determine to reject a remaining peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows.
See similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 19, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein receiving the SCS request comprises receiving the SCS request comprising a plurality of flow identifiers corresponding to a plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flow, and wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request comprises:
determining to grant a subset of peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows;
and determining to reject a remaining peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows.
See similar rejection to claim 8.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin-Bao in further view of Canpolat’186.
As to claim 13, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 disclose(s) the system of claim 12, wherein the processing unit is further operative to:
provide a reason code for rejected peer-to-peer traffic flows of the plurality of peer-to-peer traffic flows.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 5.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 .
As to claim 14, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 disclose(s) the system of claim 13, wherein the processing unit is further operative to:
provide a suggested flow identifier that is allowed by the network policy for the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 6.
As to claim 15, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 disclose(s) the system of claim 14, wherein the processing unit is further operative to:
receive another SCS request from the station, the another SCS request comprising the suggested flow identifier.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 7.
As to claim 16, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 disclose(s) the system of claim 14, wherein the processing unit being operative to determine that the network policy allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier comprises the processing unit being operative to:
determine the network policy associated with the flow identifier, and verify that the network policy associated with the flow identifier allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection to claim 2.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186.
As to claim 20, Canpolat-Shafin-Bao-Canpolat’186 disclose(s) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein determining whether to grant the SCS request comprises:
rejecting the SCS request in response to determining that the network policy does not allows the peer-to-peer traffic flow based on the flow identifier;
providing a SCS response to the station, the SCS response comprising a reason code for rejection of the SCS request;
and providing a suggested flow identifier that is allowed by the network policy for the peer-to-peer traffic flow.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 2, 5 and 6.
Conclusion
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).
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445