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
1.This action is response to application filed on 10/17/2025. Claims 2-88-107 are pending.
Claims objection
2. Claims 89-97 are objected because they depend on canceled claim 1. For examination purpose, it assumes claims 89-97 depend on claim 88. Appropriate corrections are requested.
3. Claims 99-107 are objected because they depend on canceled claims 11-12. For examination purpose, it assumes claims 99, 102-107 depend on claim 98, claims 100-101 depend on claim 99. Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
JFOLLANSBEE to LTRUONG6
Just have to add Tan, where I added the highlights for the rejection of claim 88. Also, not sure if you saw the "other reference" in the contents where there is a PCT search with an X reference. The reference is 20180367421 and its the same assignee. Uses alot of the same language an maps really easy to the claims. I checked the mapping of the rejection and it appears proper. It appears to be a much better reference than Tan.
4. Claims 88, 90, 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan et al. (US 20180367421) in view of Giallorenzi et al. (US 11,022,670) in view of Gell et al. (US 20150333994) and further in view of Woo (KR 20170071179)
Regarding claim 88:
A device that distributes content to a plurality of groups of customers over a distribution network, each group of customers having an associated time varying bandwidth demand on said device, said device comprising:
at least one measurement instrument capable of monitoring respective packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers, to sample said time-varying bandwidth demand for each said group of customers as said packets of data pass through said device; where said plurality of groups of customers is less than 500: (at least one measurement instrument capable of monitoring respective packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers, to sample said time-varying bandwidth demand for each said group of customers as said packets of data pass through said device: Cloonan claim 1).
However, Cloonan does not teach respective packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers are sampled at a rate no faster than 1 minute sampling rate.
In similar art, Giallorenzi teaches sensors dynamically update the sampling operation over time such as every second (Giallorenzi column 11, lines 38-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Giallorenzi’s ideas into Cloonan’s system in order to provide efficient data transmission network, such as optimally make use of the available channels (column 1, lines 50-54).
However, Cloonan-Giallorenzi does not explicitly teach a processor that uses samples received from said at least one measurement instrument to construct at least one probability distribution function.
In similar art, Gell teaches computing the available bandwidth for the candidate flow based at least in part on the information about the flows carried by the link and the identification of whether each of the flows carried by the link has a local constraint or a remote constraint. The predicted available bandwidth can be used to predict bandwidth consumption for active flows (see, Gell, abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gell’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi’s system in order to provide efficient data transmission network (Gell [0012]).
However, Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell does not explicitly teach probability distribution function associated with a one of said plurality of groups of customers, the probability distribution function measuring the relative likelihood that said one of said plurality of groups of customer demands bandwidth at each of a range of bandwidth values.
In similar art, Woo teaches there are plurality of performance tables, each of the performance tables may be configured to indicate the interface performance according to the interface bandwidth in the fabric network, the number of storage devices, and the queue depth. The Performance table may be determined through simulation or experiment statistics. The performance table may be generated for each group of storage devices classified according to the interface bandwidth. The control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host (Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
where a value is selected from said probability distribution function representative of (a) the number of respective said customers, (b) an average per respective said customer bandwidth, and (c) a variation component: (the control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host: Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell’s system in order to provide efficient a fabric network management system (Woo page 2).
Regarding claim 97:
In addition to the rejection claim 88, Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo further teaches probability distribution function is based upon customers from a plurality of subscriber groups: (Woo teaches each of the performance tables may be configured to indicate the interface performance according to the interface bandwidth in the fabric network, the number of storage devices, and the queue depth. The Performance table may be determined through simulation or experiment statistics. The performance table may be generated for each group of storage devices classified according to the interface bandwidth. The control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host: Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell’s system in order to provide efficient a fabric network management system (Woo page 2).
Regarding claim 90:
In addition to the rejection claim 88, Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo further teaches said value is selected from said probability distribution function representative of (a) the number of respective said customers, (b) an average per respective said customer bandwidth, and (c) a variation component would be at a lower percentage of said probability distribution function if said probability distribution function were based upon a faster said sampling rate: (Woo teaches a performance table may be generated for each group of storage devices classified according to the interface bandwidth. The control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host: Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell’s system in order to provide efficient a fabric network management system (Woo page 2).
5. Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Peng et al. (CN 109657709 A)
Regarding claim 89:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers are sampled at a rate no faster than a 5 minutes sampling rate.
In similar art, Peng teaches time window of the vibration data is 1 seconds and a sampling rate of 20kHz (Peng page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Peng’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Peng’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
6. Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Feng et al. (CN 113157505 A)
Regarding claim 91:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach calculating a growth rate for a specific group based upon said value.
In similar art, Feng teaches calculating the increment rate α according to the current network total bandwidth B (Feng abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Feng’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Feng’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
7. Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Butenhof et al. (US 20230086172)
Regarding claim 92:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach based upon a respective group of said customers that have a similar permissible peak bandwidth level of a first service level agreement.
In similar art, Butenhof teaches the I/O channels can be grouped together based on their priority levels, for example so that I/O channels of a similar priority level may be pooled into the same bandwidth group (Butenhof [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Butenhof’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Butenhof’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
8. Claim 93 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Frost et al. (US 20210384963)
Regarding claim 93:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach customers of at least one of: (a) a single CMTS; (b) as single service group; (c) a subset of a single service group; (d) a particular geographic region; and (e) a plurality of service groups.
In similar art, Frost teaches a group of stations positioned across a geographic region, (see, abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Butenhof’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Butenhof’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
9. Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Sullivan et al. (US 20230206090)
Regarding claim 94:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach probability distribution function is based upon different respective temporal time period.
In similar art, Sullivan teaches probability is based on period(s) (see, [0066]-[0069]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Sullivan’s ideas into Tan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Sullivan’s ideas into Tan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
10. Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Xing et al. (CN 115499864 A)
Regarding claim 95:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach value is based upon a neural network.
In similar art, Xing teaches obtaining the training data set containing the training set and the test set, and finishing the construction of the initial neural network model, the platform training the initial neural network model through the training set, and after finishing the training, evaluating and verifying the initial neural network model after training by the test set, to improve the accuracy of the model (Xing page 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Xing’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Xing’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
11. Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo in view of Siddique et al. (US 20180352303)
Regarding claim 96:
Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 88, but does not explicitly teach compared against current bandwidth measurements of said customers.
In similar art, Siddique teaches comparing a current bandwidth of the first plurality of users in the publishing group to a publishing threshold bandwidth ([0013]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Siddique’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Siddique’s ideas into Cloonan-Giallorenzi-Gell-Woo’s system.
12. Claim 98 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan et al. (US 20180367421) in view of Gell et al. (US 20150333994) in view of Woo (KR 20170071179)
Regarding claim 98:
A device that distributes content to a plurality of groups of customers over a distribution network, each group of customers having an associated time varying bandwidth demand on said device, said device comprising:
at least one measurement instrument capable of monitoring respective packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers, to sample said time-varying bandwidth demand for each said group of customers as said packets of data pass through said device: (at least one measurement instrument capable of monitoring respective packets of data associated with each of said plurality of groups of customers, to sample said time-varying bandwidth demand for each said group of customers as said packets of data pass through said device: Cloonan claim 1).
However, Cloonan does not explicitly teach a processor that uses samples received from said at least one measurement instrument to construct at least one probability distribution function.
In similar art, Gell teaches computing the available bandwidth for the candidate flow based at least in part on the information about the flows carried by the link and the identification of whether each of the flows carried by the link has a local constraint or a remote constraint. The predicted available bandwidth can be used to predict bandwidth consumption for active flows (see, Gell, abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Gell’s ideas into Cloonan’s system in order to provide efficient data transmission network (Gell [0012]).
However, Cloonan-Gell does not teach at least one probability distribution function associated with a one of said plurality of groups of customers, the probability distribution function measuring the relative likelihood that said one of said plurality of groups of customer demands bandwidth at each of a range of bandwidth values.
In similar art, Woo teaches there are plurality of performance tables, each of the performance tables may be configured to indicate the interface performance according to the interface bandwidth in the fabric network, the number of storage devices, and the queue depth. The Performance table may be determined through simulation or experiment statistics. The performance table may be generated for each group of storage devices classified according to the interface bandwidth. The control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host (Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
where a required capacity for,(i) a first group of customer demands is determined based upon a first service level agreement burst capacity that is based upon (a) the number of respective said customers, (b) an average per respective said customer busy-time bandwidth, (c) a first factor K, and (d) a highest permissible peak bandwidth level of a first service level agreement for respective said customers;(ii) a second group of customer demands is determined based upon a second service level agreement burst capacity that is based upon (a) the number of respective said customers,(b) an average per respective said customer busy-time bandwidth, (c) a second factor K, and (d) a highest permissible peak bandwidth level of a second service level agreement for respective said customers: (Woo teaches each of the performance tables may be configured to indicate the interface performance according to the interface bandwidth in the fabric network, the number of storage devices, and the queue depth. The bandwidth level for the group is counted based on accumulated bandwidth for storage devices in the group, and may be determined through simulation or experiment statistics: Woo page 3, page 4, page 5);
(c) wherein said highest permissible peak bandwidth level of said second service level agreement is greater than said highest permissible peak bandwidth level of said first service level agreement, and said required capacity for said first group of customer demands is greater than said required capacity for said first group of customer demands: (the control unit calculates/ and allocates at least one group of storage devices corresponding to the service quality can be assigned to the host. It is essential to understand that bandwidth level of each group could not be equal to other groups. And one group could have highest peak bandwidth level than the other groups: Woo page 3, page 4; page 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell’s system in order to provide efficient a fabric network management system (Woo page 2).
13. Claims 99-100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Stepnioski (US 20210243309)
Regarding claim 99:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach a CMTS.
In similar art, Stepnioski teaches CMTS (see [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Stepnioski’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Stepnioski’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
Regarding claim 100:
In addition to the rejection claim 99, Cloonan-Gell-Woo-Stepnioski further measures packets of data entering said CMTS from a router to the Internet: (Stepnioski teaches a statistical average usage value for all of the subscriber domains in the measured area (CMTS): [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Stepnioski’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Stepnioski’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
14. Claim 101 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo-Stepnioski in view of Bernstein (US 20160197846)
Regarding claim 101:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo-Stepnioski discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 99, but does not explicitly teach CMTS is in a device remotely connected to said CMTS.
In similar art, Bernstein teaches CMTS is geographically remotely located from the cable modems ([0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Bernstein’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo-Stepnioski’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Bernstein’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo-Stepnioski’s system.
15. Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Giallorenzi et al. (US 11,022,670)
Regarding claim 102:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach samples used by said processor are measured over an interval no longer than approximately one second.
In similar art, Giallorenzi teaches sensors dynamically update the sampling operation over time such as every second (Giallorenzi column 11, lines 38-46).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Giallorenzi’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to provide efficient data transmission network, such as optimally make use of the available channels (column 1, lines 50-54).
16. Claim 103 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Shafiee et al. (CN 106664525 B)
Regarding claim 103:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach construct a first probability distribution function associated with a present time, and a second probability distribution function associated with a future time.
In similar art, Shafiee teaches predicting from future position of probability model, and current probability model, (page 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shafiee’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Shafiee’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
17. Claim 104 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Ali et al. (US 20090158096)
Regarding claim 104:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach monitors packets of data moving in a downstream direction to said groups of customers
In similar art, Ali teaches the spatial monitoring-correlation mechanism finds the first node (from the downstream side of the listed STBs towards the video source) that is a common ancestor to all of the STBs 116 that are reporting transmission problem (Ali [0076]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Ali’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Ali’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
18. Claim 105 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Chappell et al. (US 20080298270)
Regarding claim 105:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach monitors packets of data moving in an upstream direction from said groups of customers.
In similar art, Chappell et al. (US 20080298270) teaches upstream path monitoring, ([0007], [0009]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Chappell’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Chappell’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
19. Claim 106 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Nicholls et al. (WO 2018053448 A1)
Regarding claim 106:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach highest permissible peak bandwidth level of said second service level agreement for respective said customers is increased in a manner different than said highest permissible peak bandwidth level of said first service level agreement for respective said customers.
In similar art, Nicholls teaches bandwidth usage limits could be increased or decreased to the level allowed based upon agreement (Nicholls [0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Nicholls’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Nicholls’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
20. Claim 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cloonan-Gell-Woo in view of Feng et al. (CN 113157505 A)
Regarding claim 107:
Cloonan-Gell-Woo discloses the invention substantially as disclosed in claim 98, but does not explicitly teach increasing is selected in a manner without increasing required capacity.
In similar art, Feng teaches calculating the increment rate α according to the current network total bandwidth B (Feng abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Feng’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system in order to save resources and development time by implying Feng’s ideas into Cloonan-Gell-Woo’s system.
Conclusions
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAN DAI T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 Am to 3:00 PM.
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, Follansbee John A can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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.
/LAN DAI T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights