DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed June 24, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. The amendments to claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are grammatical in nature or narrow the claims without altering the manner in which the prior art of record is applied, and the rejections of record are maintained herein with the amended claim language. No new ground of rejection is set forth in this Office action. See MPEP 706.07(a). Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Mena does not teach or suggest "detect[ing] that an ingress rate of data of a first wireless communication session associated with a wireless node satisfies an ingress rate threshold," as recited in independent claim 1. . . . the trigger conditions that Mena describes (i.e., threshold conditions related to airtime usage, channel utilization, queue depth, or congestion) relate to downstream consequences of overall traffic conditions, not to an ingress rate of data satisfying an ingress rate threshold” (Remarks, page 7-8). This argument is not persuasive, for the following two independent reasons.
First, Mena does not treat the airtime fairness threshold as unrelated to the incoming data rate; Mena expressly defines the threshold event as the manifestation of the incoming data rate being too high: (Mena, para [0048] “if the incoming data rate of the data packets is too high, a measured airtime usage associated with the multimedia traffic flow may exceed an allocated airtime fairness threshold that is allocated to the flow or device”; Mena, para [0072] “the incoming data rate of the data packets may be too high, thereby causing a measured airtime usage associated with the multimedia traffic flow to exceed an allocated airtime fairness threshold that is allocated to the flow or device”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, detecting that the measured airtime usage of a flow exceeds the airtime fairness threshold allocated to that flow is detecting that the ingress rate of data of that flow satisfies an ingress rate threshold, because Mena teaches that the exceedance occurs when and because the incoming data rate of that flow is too high. Independent claim 1 does not recite any particular form for the ingress rate threshold; the particular value and delta threshold forms are recited in dependent claim 4, which is separately addressed with Dao in the rejection below.
Secondly, Mena is not limited to indirect detection; Mena monitors the incoming data rate itself. Mena provides a dedicated incoming data rate monitoring process: (Mena, FIG. 3, step 302 and para [0042] “system 300 may include an incoming data rate monitoring process 302”; Mena, para [0042] “monitor and/or obtain one or more incoming data rates of one or more multimedia traffic flows”), and Mena expressly detects the incoming data rate against a rate valued criterion: (Mena, para [0054] “when the incoming data rate is detected to be the same or substantially the same as the target data rate”). Accordingly, Mena teaches detecting that an ingress rate of data satisfies an ingress rate threshold as recited in independent claims 1 and 14.
Moreover, Applicant further argues, with respect to independent claim 14, that Yang’s scheduling decisions are driven by relative counter values and that “Yang does not teach or suggest an ingress rate threshold, nor does the Office Action suggest otherwise” (Remarks, page 9). This argument is not persuasive because it attacks Yang individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Mena and Yang. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The rejection does not rely on Yang for the ingress rate threshold or for the threshold based trigger; those are supplied by Mena, which teaches threshold triggered priority reassignment of the monitored flow: (Mena, para [0066] “If the incoming data rate should be adjusted as identified in step 704, a priority value from a data frame associated with the multimedia traffic flow may be obtained”; Mena, para [0067] “if it is identified that the incoming data rate should be lowered in order to adjust to the target data rate, then the multimedia traffic flow may be assigned to a lower priority queue”). Yang is relied upon for organizing the monitored traffic as communication sessions and for scheduling the traffic of one session relative to other sessions, as set forth in the rejection below. In the combination, Mena’s threshold triggered priority reassignment is applied at the session granularity of Yang, such that the scheduling priority of the first session is updated relative to a second session based on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, not whether one reference individually shows each feature.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that dependent claims 3-11, 13, and 15-20 “are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claims 1 and 14 are allowable” (Remarks, page 10). This argument is not persuasive because it relies solely on the dependency of those claims from independent claims 1 and 14, which remain rejected for the reasons set forth above and below. No separate argument directed to any additional limitation of the dependent claims has been presented.
For at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections of record are maintained and are restated below with the amended claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are 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. On the present record, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations added by claims 2 and 12, as set forth in the Office action mailed April 8, 2026. Applicant has elected to maintain claims 2 and 12 in dependent form, and the objection is accordingly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mena (US20200100143A1; “Mena”) in view of Yang (US11297634B2; “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Mena teaches: (Currently Amended) An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the apparatus to: that method may be performed at a network node, such as a router, wireless router, or wireless AP, and that the network node may include one or more processors, one or more memories coupled to the processors, and one or more wireless transceivers, with instructions stored in memory for execution by the processors (Mena, paras [0046], [0068], [0080]).
Further, Mena teaches receiving data packets of a multimedia traffic flow at an incoming data rate for delivery to a wireless mobile device and determining whether the incoming data rate should be adjusted when measured airtime usage or one or more communication-related parameters exceed a threshold (Mena, paras [0047]-[0048], [0065]), although Mena does not explicitly disclose organizing the monitored traffic as a first wireless communication session associated with the wireless node: detect that an ingress rate of data of a first wireless communication session associated with a wireless node satisfies an ingress rate threshold; and
However, Mena in view of Yang teaches organizing the monitored traffic as a first wireless communication session associated with the wireless node because Yang discloses communication sessions between applications and other devices on a WiFi network, including sessions between the applications and a proxy and sessions between the proxy and the other devices (Yang, col. 3, lines 2-16).
Moreover, Mena teaches adjust a set of communication parameters associated with the wireless node for subsequent communications based on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold. determining a target data rate based on the incoming data rate and one or more communication-related parameters, enforcing the target data rate with a traffic shaping process, and maintaining or changing the priority-queue assignment when adjustment is needed (Mena, paras [0059]-[0060], [0065]-[0067], [0077]-[0080]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply Mena’s threshold-based incoming-rate monitoring and traffic-shaping control to the session-based wireless traffic management of Yang because both references are directed to controlling wireless communications under constrained WiFi resources and to organizing and handling traffic associated with particular applications, flows, or sessions.
Doing so would have predictably permitted the wireless apparatus to identify high-ingress traffic at session granularity and to adjust subsequent wireless handling of that traffic to improve congestion handling, airtime fairness, and quality of service.
Regarding claim 7, Mena teaches changing the priority-queue assignment of a multimedia traffic flow when the incoming data rate should be adjusted and assigning the flow to a lower or higher priority queue (Mena, paras [0065]-[0067]), although Mena does not explicitly disclose updating a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session associated with the wireless node based on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold: (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: update a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session associated with the wireless node based on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold.
However, Mena in view of Yang teaches updating a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session associated with the wireless node based on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold because Yang discloses selecting a counter associated with a first communication session as being the largest of a plurality of counters each associated with a different communication session and determining that the traffic of the first communication session is to be scheduled for transmission (Yang, col. 10, lines 17-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply Mena’s threshold-triggered priority reassignment at the session granularity taught by Yang because doing so would have predictably changed the relative scheduling order of one session with respect to another session for the same wireless node.
Doing so would have predictably permitted the apparatus to reprioritize a monitored session relative to another session when ingress conditions justify different scheduling treatment.
Regarding claim 8, Mena in view of Yang teaches: (Original) The apparatus of claim 7, wherein at least one of the adjustment or the update is based on one or more of a plurality of procedures associated with the detection. Mena teaches incoming data rate monitoring process 302, target data rate determination process 304, and target data rate enforcement process 306, such that at least the adjustment is based on a plurality of procedures associated with the detection (Mena, paras [0042]-[0045], [0059]-[0060]).
Accordingly, claim 8 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 7 because applying Mena’s multiple monitoring, rate-determination, and enforcement procedures within the session-based scheduling framework of Mena in view of Yang would have predictably made the adjustment or update based on a plurality of procedures associated with the detection.
Regarding claim 14, Mena teaches: (Currently Amended) An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the apparatus to: Mena teaches that the disclosed method may be performed at a network node, such as a router, wireless router, or wireless AP, and that the network node may include one or more processors, one or more memories coupled to the processors, and one or more wireless transceivers, with instructions stored in memory for execution by the processors (Mena, paras [0046], [0080]).
Further, Mena teaches threshold-triggered monitoring of an incoming data rate of a multimedia traffic flow for delivery to a wireless mobile device (Mena, paras [0047]-[0048], [0065]), although Mena does not explicitly disclose organizing the monitored traffic as a first wireless communication session associated with the wireless node: detect that an ingress rate of data of a first wireless communication session associated with a wireless node satisfies an ingress rate threshold; and
However, Mena in view of Yang teaches organizing the monitored traffic as a first wireless communication session associated with the wireless node because Yang discloses communication sessions between applications and other devices on a WiFi network, including sessions between the applications and a proxy and sessions between the proxy and the other devices (Yang, col. 3, lines 12-19).
Moreover, Mena teaches changing the priority-queue assignment of a multimedia traffic flow when the incoming data rate should be adjusted and assigning that flow to a lower or higher priority queue (Mena, paras [0065]-[0067]), although Mena does not explicitly disclose updating a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session, the update being based at least in part on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold: update a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session, the update being in part on the ingress rate satisfying the ingress rate threshold.
However, Mena in view of Yang teaches updating a scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than a scheduling priority of a second wireless communication session because Yang discloses selecting a counter associated with a first communication session as the largest of a plurality of counters each associated with a different communication session and determining that the traffic of the first communication session is to be scheduled for transmission (Yang, col. 10, lines 17-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to apply Mena’s threshold-triggered priority reassignment to the session-based scheduling architecture of Yang because both references are directed to improving handling of wireless session traffic under constrained WiFi conditions.
Doing so would have predictably permitted the apparatus to reprioritize a monitored session relative to another session when ingress conditions justify different scheduling treatment.
Regarding claim 17, Mena in view of Yang teaches: (Original) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than the scheduling priority of the second wireless communication session comprises updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be higher than the scheduling priority of the second wireless communication session. Mena teaches assigning the multimedia traffic flow to a priority queue that is higher than the queue associated with video traffic, such as a voice queue, when higher priority treatment is used (Mena, para [0067]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14 because assigning the traffic of the first session to a higher-priority queue, as taught by Mena, would have predictably resulted in updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be higher than that of the second wireless communication session.
Regarding claim 18, Mena in view of Yang teaches: : (Original) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session further comprises updating a scheduling priority of one or more data traffic flows associated with the first wireless communication session. Mena teaches updating the queue priority of the identified multimedia traffic flow itself, thereby updating the priority handling of one or more data traffic flows associated with the session (Mena, paras [0065]-[0067]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14 because updating the queue priority of the identified multimedia traffic flow itself, as taught by Mena, would have predictably updated the scheduling priority of one or more data traffic flows associated with the first wireless communication session.
Regarding claim 19, Mena in view of Yang teaches: : (Original) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the apparatus updates the priority of the first wireless communication session in accordance with a service based scheduling framework. Yang teaches separating communication sessions into service classes, such as business class and economy class, and prioritizing sessions in business class using reserved bandwidth treatment while economy-class sessions compete for the remaining bandwidth (Yang, col. 3, lines 42-50; col. 5, lines 1-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 14 because Yang’s service-based scheduling framework supplies the scheduling basis for the already-taught session-priority update.
Claims 3, 11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mena (US20200100143A1; “Mena”) in view of Yang (US11297634B2; “Yang”) and further in view of Homchaudhuri (US11936473B2; “Homchaudhuri”).
Regarding claim 3, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-based adjustment of subsequent communications for a wireless communication session associated with a wireless node (Mena, paras [0049]-[0050], [0057], [0065]-[0067]; Yang, col. 3, lines 12-19), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose allocating a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node for the subsequent communications: : (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to adjust the set of communication parameters, the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: allocate a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node for the subsequent communications.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Homchaudhuri teaches allocating a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node for the subsequent communications because Homchaudhuri discloses that an AP is configured to establish two or more links with a single STA, that the STA may operate in dual-link mode, and that the STA may connect via three or more links (Homchaudhuri, col. 7, lines 52-56; col. 8, lines 41-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the threshold-responsive apparatus of Mena in view of Yang to allocate multiple links as taught by Homchaudhuri because doing so would have predictably increased available transmission resources for the subsequent communications of the identified session.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the apparatus to respond to the detected ingress condition by distributing later traffic across multiple wireless links under a known multi-link operating arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-based adjustment of subsequent communications for a wireless communication session associated with a wireless node (Mena, paras [0049]-[0050], [0057], [0065]-[0067]; Yang, col. 3, lines 12-19), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose allocating a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node in accordance with a multi-link operation framework: : (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: allocate a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node in accordance with a multi-link operation framework.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Homchaudhuri teaches allocating a plurality of additional wireless communication links to the wireless node in accordance with a multi-link operation framework because Homchaudhuri discloses a communications manager including a multi-link operations manager that selects a mode of multi-link operations based on at least one network metric and at least one connection parameter, where the mode of multi-link operations includes a dual-link mode or a single-link mode over available links (Homchaudhuri, col. 20, lines 20-35).
Claim 11 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3 because Homchaudhuri provides the known multi-link operation framework by which the multiple links are established, selected, and used.
Regarding claim 13, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-based communication-parameter control for subsequent wireless communications (Mena, paras [0059]-[0060], [0065]-[0067], [0077]-[0080]), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose the added antenna hardware: (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising one or more antennas configured to communicate with the wireless node via the set of communication parameters,
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Homchaudhuri teaches one or more antennas configured to communicate with the wireless node via the set of communication parameters because Homchaudhuri discloses a receiver and transmitter that may each utilize a single antenna or a set of multiple antennas for wireless communication (Homchaudhuri, col. 19, lines 43-64).
Further, Mena teaches: wherein the apparatus configured as an access point (AP). Mena teaches a wireless AP for use in a wireless network and an AP embodiment including one or more processors and one or more wireless transceivers that perform the disclosed traffic-shaping functions (Mena, paras [0077]-[0080]).
Claim 13 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above because providing the AP of Mena in view of Yang with the antenna structures taught by Homchaudhuri would have been a routine implementation of the disclosed wireless transceiver functions. Doing so would have predictably enabled the AP to implement the threshold-based communication-parameter control using conventional antenna hardware.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites: (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 14, further comprising one or more antennas configured to communicate with the wireless node according to the priority, wherein the apparatus configured as an access point (AP). Claim 20 is analogous to claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4-6, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mena (US20200100143A1; “Mena”) in view of Yang (US11297634B2; “Yang”) and further in view of Dao (US20150124604A1; “Dao”).
Regarding claim 4, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-triggered detection of an ingress rate of data of a first wireless communication session associated with a wireless node (Mena, paras [0047]-[0048], [0065]; Yang, col. 3, lines 12-19), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose detecting that the first wireless communication session satisfies at least one of a first ingress rate value threshold associated with the wireless node, a first ingress rate delta threshold associated with the wireless node, a second ingress rate value threshold associated with the first wireless communication session, or a second ingress rate delta threshold associated with the first wireless communication session: (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to detect that the ingress rate of data satisfies the ingress rate threshold, the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect that the first wireless communication session satisfies at least one of a first ingress rate value threshold associated with the wireless node, a first ingress rate delta threshold associated with the wireless node, a second ingress rate value threshold associated with the first wireless communication session, or a second ingress rate delta threshold associated with the first wireless communication session.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches detecting that the first wireless communication session satisfies at least one of the recited threshold forms because Dao discloses a congestion alert threshold comprising an incoming data rate threshold to an ingress server, configurable thresholds for incoming flow rates, and thresholds associated with radio-node congestion (Dao, paras [0005], [0025]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to express the threshold event used in Mena in view of Yang with the threshold formulations taught by Dao because Dao provides a known way to define ingress-trigger conditions at both flow/session granularity and wireless-node granularity.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the ingress-threshold logic of Mena in view of Yang to be implemented using known threshold forms used for proactive wireless congestion detection.
Regarding claim 5, Mena in view of Yang teaches ongoing ingress-rate monitoring and continued evaluation of whether incoming rate conditions warrant traffic shaping (Mena, paras [0054]-[0057], [0065]-[0067]), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose detecting that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold: (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold; and
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches detecting that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold because Dao discloses periodically measuring incoming flow rates, monitoring incoming traffic against configurable thresholds, and sending updates for live monitoring (Dao, paras [0025]-[0030]).
Further, Mena teaches that the traffic shaping process may be released when the incoming data rate is detected to be the same or substantially the same as the target data rate and that updated target data rates may be determined based on updated incoming data rate and updated communication-related parameters as conditions change (Mena, paras [0054]-[0056], [0060]), although Mena does not explicitly disclose adjusting the set of communication parameters of the wireless node based on the ingress rate ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold: adjust the set of communication parameters of the wireless node based on the ingress rate ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches adjusting the set of communication parameters of the wireless node based on the ingress rate ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold because Dao teaches continued threshold monitoring of incoming flow rates over time, thereby supplying a known basis for determining when the threshold condition no longer exists (Dao, paras [0025]-[0030]).
Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above because continued ingress monitoring, as taught by Dao, would have predictably supported releasing or re-adjusting the traffic-shaping parameters in the manner taught by Mena when the threshold condition is no longer met.
Regarding claim 6, Mena in view of Yang teaches repeated and continued rate monitoring for a multimedia traffic flow (Mena, paras [0054]-[0057]), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose detecting that the ingress rate ceases from satisfying the ingress rate threshold for each time interval of a plurality of time intervals: (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 5, wherein, to detect that the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold, the processing system is configured to: detect that the ingress rate ceases from satisfying the ingress rate threshold for each time interval of a plurality of time intervals.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches detecting that the ingress rate ceases from satisfying the ingress rate threshold for each time interval of a plurality of time intervals because Dao discloses periodically measured flow rates, regular updates for live monitoring, and monitoring incoming rates of flows against configurable thresholds (Dao, paras [0025]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above because applying Dao’s multi-interval ingress monitoring to the repeated threshold evaluation of Mena would have predictably provided detection of whether the ingress rate remained above, or ceased to satisfy, the threshold across successive time intervals.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites: (Original) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect that the first wireless communication session satisfies at least one of a first ingress rate value threshold associated with the wireless node, a first ingress rate delta threshold associated with the wireless node, a second ingress rate value threshold associated with the first wireless communication session, or a second ingress rate delta threshold associated with the first wireless communication session. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-based monitoring of a wireless communication session and session-based scheduling priority handling (Mena, paras [0054]-[0057], [0065]-[0067]; Yang, col. 10, lines 17-38), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose detecting that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold: (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold; and
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches detecting that the ingress rate of the first wireless communication session ceases to satisfy the ingress rate threshold because Dao discloses periodically measuring incoming flow rates, monitoring incoming traffic against configurable thresholds, and sending updates for live monitoring (Dao, paras [0025]-[0030]).
Further, Mena in view of Yang teaches threshold-triggered priority updating for a first session relative to other sessions and teaches re-adjusting communication-parameter control and priority handling as rate conditions change (Mena, paras [0054]-[0056], [0060], [0065]-[0067]; Yang, col. 10, lines 17-38), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than the scheduling priority of the second wireless communication session based on the first wireless communication session ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold: update the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than the scheduling priority of the second wireless communication session based on the first wireless communication session ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Dao teaches updating the scheduling priority of the first wireless communication session to be different than the scheduling priority of the second wireless communication session based on the first wireless communication session ceasing to satisfy the ingress rate threshold because Dao teaches continued threshold monitoring of incoming flow rates over time, thereby supplying a known basis for determining when the threshold condition is no longer met (Dao, paras [0025]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Dao’s continued threshold monitoring into the threshold-driven session-priority mechanism of Mena in view of Yang because Dao provides a known way to determine when a monitored ingress condition ceases, and Mena already teaches readjusting communication parameters, including priority handling, as rate conditions change.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the system to update the relative scheduling priority of the monitored session when the ingress-trigger condition is no longer satisfied.Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mena (US20200100143A1; “Mena”) in view of Yang (US11297634B2; “Yang”) and further in view of Ramasamy (US20130073743A1; “Ramasamy”).
Regarding claim 9, Mena in view of Yang teaches a first wireless communication session associated with a wireless node and session-based wireless traffic handling (Mena, paras [0047]-[0048], [0065]; Yang, col. 3, lines 12-19), although Mena in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose that the first wireless communication session comprises one or more data traffic flows, each data traffic flow being associated with a same source internet protocol (IP) address and a same destination IP address: (Original) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication session comprises one or more data traffic flows, each data traffic flow being associated with a same source internet protocol (IP) address and a same destination IP address.
However, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Ramasamy teaches that the first wireless communication session comprises one or more data traffic flows, each data traffic flow being associated with a same source internet protocol address and a same destination internet protocol address because Ramasamy discloses that session information identifies flows associated with a session, that a flow is a sequence of packets sent from a source to a destination and may be identified by a five tuple including protocol, source IP address, destination IP address, source port, and destination port, and that a session is a series of related flows that may be identified using tuples including source IP address and destination IP address (Ramasamy, paras [0008]-[0010], [0019]-[0020], [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Ramasamy’s tuple-based flow/session identification into the session-based wireless traffic management of Mena in view of Yang because Ramasamy provides a known way to define a session as related flows and to identify the associated flows using packet-header tuple information.
Doing so would have predictably allowed the apparatus to define the first wireless communication session in terms of grouped data traffic flows sharing source and destination addressing while preserving per-flow differentiation where needed by port or protocol.
Regarding claim 10, Mena in view of Yang and further in view of Ramasamy teaches: (Original) The apparatus of claim 9, wherein at least one of: the one or more data traffic flows are further associated with at least one of a source port, a destination port, a communication protocol, a source medium access control (MAC) address, or a destination MAC address; or the wireless node is associated with the destination MAC address. Ramasamy teaches that a flow may be identified by protocol, source IP address, destination IP address, source port, and destination port, thereby teaching at least the recited source-port, destination-port, and communication-protocol alternatives (Ramasamy, para [0019]). Accordingly, Claim 10 would have been obvious for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9 because Ramasamy’s tuple-based flow identification expressly supplies conventional header-field associations for the flows already grouped into the session.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights