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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 September 2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin et al. (US 2025/0203446 as supported by the corresponding figures and passages of U.S. Provisional application No. 63/611,373) in view of Kang et al. (US 2021/0007002), Kotecha et al. (US 2022/0337706), Canpolat et al. (US 2023/0379749) and Liao (US 2022/0086741). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Shafin discloses a method comprising: receiving, by an Access Point (AP), a Stream Classification Service (SCS) request from a station for a SCS flow (figs. 8-9 and 12, and para. 103; paras. 142-143 and 149; note: traffic streams or flows), the SCS request comprising a flow identifier for the SCS flow (paras. 98 and 100; note: QoS/SCS request; paras. 136, 138 and 142-143; note: traffic or stream identifier in the request), and processing, by the AP, the SCS request for the SCS flow (para. 98; note: accepts, rejects or suggests alternatives for the request).
Shafin fails to disclose wherein the flow identifier comprises a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FDQN) or an application Identifier (ID) for identifying the SCS flow. However, Kang discloses an application identifier for QoS in a flow request (fig. 3 and para. 113), and Kotecha discloses an application identifier used with QoS to manage data flow policy (fig. 6-8 and paras. 47 (“application identifier associated with the data flow”), 48-50, 79 and 92). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flow identifier comprise a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FDQN) or an application Identifier (ID) for identifying the SCS flow in the invention of Shafin. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing network control of a flow based on an application as is known int the art (Kang, fig. 3 and para. 113; Kotecha, fig. 6-8 and paras. 47-50, 79 and 92; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Shafin in view of Kang and Kotecha fails to teach and make obvious verifying, by the AP, a network policy associated with the flow identifier for the SCS flow; and processing, by the AP, the SCS request for the SCS flow based on the network policy. However, Canpolat discloses an SCS request for QoS where the policy for QoS setup is verified (fig. 8 and para. 26 and 69; note: reject or admit a request based on network availability; note: maximum resource use), and Liao discloses QoS and traffic policies of a network (paras. 90, 179-181 and 200) that are authorized (para. 92-93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify, by the AP, a network policy associated with the flow identifier for the SCS flow; and process, by the AP, the SCS request for the SCS flow based on the network policy in the invention of Shafin in view of Kang and Kotecha. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, controlling resource allocation of a network as is known in the art (Canpolat, fig. 8 and para. 26 and 69; Liao, paras. 90, 92-93, 179-181 and 200) that are authorized; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein processing the SCS request comprises determining a quality of service characteristics associated with the flow identifier received in the SCS request (Shafin, paras. 103 and 142-143; note: receiving and accepting or rejecting the QoS requirements of the flow or stream; Canpolat, fig. 8 and para. 26 and 69; Liao, paras. 90, 92-93, 179-181 and 200).
Regarding claim 3, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the FDQN or the application ID is provided in a sub-element of a SCS descriptor element of the SCS request (Shafin, para. 143).
Regarding claim 6, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein verifying the network policy associated with the flow identifier for the SCS flow comprises: determining the network policy associated with the flow identifier (Shafin, paras. 103 and 142-143; Canpolat, fig. 8 and para. 26 and 69); and verifying that the network policy associated with the flow identifier allows the SCS flow (; Liao, paras. 90, 92-93, 179-181 and 200).
Regarding claim 7, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein processing the SCS request for the SCS flow comprises determining that the AP can support QoS resources requested for the SCS flow Shafin, paras. 103 and 142-143; Canpolat, fig. 8 and para. 26 and 69; note: reject or admit a request based on network availability; note: maximum resource use).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisen et al. (US 2023/0127299).
Regarding claim 5, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao fails to teach and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the FDQN or the application ID is provided in a classifier type 10 field of a traffic classifier element of the SCS request. However, Eisen discloses SCS information in a type 10 element (para. 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have FDQN or the application ID provided in a classifier type 10 field of a traffic classifier element of the SCS request in the invention of Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing control data in a standardized format as is known in the art (Eisen, para. 31; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2023/0021830).
Regarding claim 8, Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao fails to teach and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the application ID comprises an operating system assigned application ID and an operating system type. However, Sun discloses this feature (paras. 97-98; paras. 65 and 157; note: exchange of control information including operating system identifier and an operating system application identifier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the application ID comprise an operating system assigned application ID and an operating system type in the invention of Shafin in view of Kang, Kotecha Canpolat and Liao. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, using application and operating system information to provide policy control in a network as is known in the art (Sun, paras. 65, 97-98 and 157; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
