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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 06/23/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the explanation below:
Claim element mapping and analysis (Independent claims 1 and 11):
Claim limitation, “obtaining, from a payload of a predesignated packet in the network session, metadata that contains network traffic information associated with the communication network”. Mac expressly teaches passing metadata with a packet into a packet buffer and propagating that metadata through the kernel protocol stack, [0032], [0039-0040].
The metadata is carried in association with the packet as it is processed by the network device. The claim requires obtaining metadata from a predesigned packet in the network session that contains network traffic information. Mac’s metadata is associated with the packet payload as he packet traverses the device and is obtained during packet processing. Whether the metadata is generated is user space and attached to the packet buffer, or parsed from the packet payload, is an implementation detail; in both cases the metadata is obtained in association with the packet and used to represent traffic-related information. The claim does not require the metadata to originate at the sender in a particular encoding; it requires obtaining metadata from a packet in the session , which Mac discloses.
Claim limitation “metadata that contains network traffic information associated with the communication network”
Mac discloses that the metadata attached to packet is used by kernel components (e.g., the tunnel interface driver) to make forwarding and routing decisions (see Mac, [0040], [0046]).
Forwarding and routing decisions are based on metadata in Mac necessarily conveys network traffic information used to control packet handling and routing, satisfying the claim’s requirement that the metadata contains network traffic information with the communication network.
Claim limitation, “applying, based on the network traffic information, a traffic shaping policy to passenger device…. Wherein the traffic shaping policy controls routing of traffic flow of the passenger device through the communication network”
Mac discloses, that a user space application generates metadata for outbound packets and that the kernel’s tunnel interface drive uses that metadata to make per-packet forwarding decisions which determine where to send packet (Mac, [0040], [0046]).
The claimed “traffic shaping policy” is a functional limitation, control of routing of traffic flow based on network traffic information. Mac’s per-packet forwarding decisions, driven by metadata, effect control over routing of a device’s traffic flow though the network. The difference in terminology (per-packet forwarding logic versus a named “traffic shaping policy) is an implementation distinction that does not avoid anticipation where the same functional result e.g. routing control based on metadata is disclosed.
Claim limitation, “based on the network traffic information” (causal relationship)
Mac explicitly ties forwarding decisions to the metadata content ([0040], [0046]). The metadata is used to influence packet handling and routing.
The claim requires that the traffic shaping policy by control is performed using the metadata content; therefore, Mac discloses applying routing control based on network traffic information.
I) Applicant further asserts that Mac’s metadata is “attached to a packet buffer in kernel space” and was generated by a user-space application, and therefore is not “obtained from a payload of a predesignated packet in the network session.”
Examiner respectfully disagree because the claim language requires obtaining metadata from a predesignated packet in the network session; it does not require that the metadata be originally encoded in the packet at the sender or prohibit metadata generation in user space. Mac’s metadata is carried with the packet and obtained during packet processing; this satisfies the claim requirement. The locus of the metadata (user space vs. kernel buffer) is an implementation detail that does not negate the functional disclosure.
II) Applicant further argues that Mac’s per-packet forwarding is different from applying a traffic shaping policy to a passenger device that controls routing of the device’s traffic flow.
Examiner respectfully disagree because Mac’s per-packet forwarding decisions determine where each packet is sent and thus control the routing of the device’s traffic flow. The claim’s functional requirement, control of routing of traffic flow based on network traffic information is met by Mac’s teaching of metadata driven forwarding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MacNeil et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0219805 A1), hereinafter “Mac”.
As to claim 1. Mac discloses, a method for managing network traffic flow for a commercial passenger vehicle (Mac, Abstract), comprising:
receiving, by a server comprising at least one processor, a request for a network session from a passenger device operating in a communication network onboard a commercial passenger vehicle (Mac, [0023]-[0024], PED’s and servers as endpoints that generate/receive packets);
obtaining, from a payload of a predesignated packet in the network session, metadata that contains network traffic information associated with the communication network (Mac, [0032], FIG. 3, at step 320 one or more of the systems described herein may pass, along with the packet, metadata for the packet to a packet buffer in kernel space on the network device.);
correlating an identifier for the passenger device to a traffic flow in the network session, wherein the identifier is based on the metadata (Mac, [0021], identifying information (TLV, destination, route) that can serve as an identifier correlated to a packet /flow); and
applying, based on the network traffic information, a traffic shaping policy to the passenger device corresponding to the identifier, wherein the traffic shaping policy controls routing of traffic flow of the passenger device through the communication network (Mac, [0003], [0046], forwarding, by the tunnel interface driver, the packet to the remote device based at least in part on the metadata with which the packet was encapsulated. Further, [0040], the user-space application may now be able to make and/or pass routing decisions for its packets by specifying and/or identifying those routing decisions in the packets' metadata.).
As to claim 11 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mac” as applied above, in view of Yungelson et al. (Patent No.: US 11/99779 B1), hereinafter “Yung”.
As to claim 2. Mac discloses the invention substantially as discussed above. Mac however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the predesignated packet is a first packet in the network session, wherein the payload is a first payload of the first packet.
Yung discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the predesignated packet is a first packet in the network session, wherein the payload is a first payload of the first packet (Yung, Abstract, the first network device modifies the first packet to include metadata comprising a packet capture indicator that indicates whether packet capture is to be performed for the session.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Yung” into those of “Mac” to provide a technique to generate a session-specific packet capture records. A first network device receives a first packet of a session between first and second client devices, the session comprising forward and reverse packet flows. The first network device modifies the first packet to include metadata comprising a packet capture indicator that indicates whether packet capture is to be performed for the session. The first network device stores at least a portion of the first packet and each subsequent packet of the session and forwards the modified first packet.
As to claim 12 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mac” as applied above, in view of Detwiler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0385582 A1), hereinafter “Det”.
As to claim 3. Mac discloses the invention as in parent claim above. Mac however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the applying the traffic shaping policy comprises:
obtaining a usage rate of the communication network by the passenger device or a cost associated with the communication network; and determining the traffic shaping policy based on the usage rate or the cost.
Det discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the applying the traffic shaping policy comprises: obtaining a usage rate of the communication network by the passenger device or a cost associated with the communication network; and determining the traffic shaping policy based on the usage rate or the cost (Det, [0020], A traffic shaper may utilize a credit-based system, [0021], Each cost table record may be indexed by a dynamic read-pointer that may be increased or decreased to change the current set of parameters utilized by the traffic-shaping circuit. Also see [0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Det” into those of “Mac” to provide a traffic shaping circuit regulates packets transferred by a transmission resource into a network (e.g., a network on a chip) on behalf of a client. The packet transfers are selectively enabled or disabled based on a current budget value. The budget value is modified based on a packet-transfer cost in response to transferring a packet into the network. The rate of packet transfers into the network is monitored. A cost-adjustment signal is generated based on the rate of packet transfers. The packet-transfer cost is modified in response to the cost-adjustment signal for accounting for a subsequent-packet transfer into the network.
As to claim 8. The combines system of Mac and Det discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the traffic shaping policy includes generating a user data report, wherein a passenger associated with the passenger device is billed for network usage based on network usage rate information contained in the user data report (Det, fig.2, [0031], For instance, FIG. 2 is a flowchart 200 of a method for controlling a packet transfer rate by dynamically adjusting packet-transfer cost and/or budget parameters, according to an example embodiment. In an embodiment, traffic shaping circuit 102 may operate according to flowchart 200.).
As to claim 9. The combines system of Mac and Det discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the network session is a TCP session, wherein the predesignated packet is a first SYN packet in the TCP session (Det, col.7, lines 30-40, to establish session 40 according to TCP such that data may be exchanged according to TCP, router 110A and router 110B perform a three-way handshake. Router 110A sends a first packet comprising a “SYN” flag to router 110B.).
As to claim 10. The combines system of Mac and Det discloses the invention substantially including, wherein the identifier is an IP address associated with the passenger device (Det, fig.1, ethernet network with TCP protocol).
As to claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 8 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mac” as applied above, in view of Carlin et al. (Patent No.: US 6556828 A1), hereinafter “Carl”.
As to claim 4. Mac discloses the invention as in parent claim above. Mac however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the communication network is provided by a satellite network, a cellular network, or a ground Wi-Fi network, wherein the satellite network includes at least one of a Geostationary Earth (GEO) satellite or a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite.
Carl however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor, including, wherein the communication network is provided by a satellite network, a cellular network, or a ground Wi-Fi network, wherein the satellite network includes at least one of a Geostationary Earth (GEO) satellite or a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite (Carl, fig.1, col.3, lines 61-67 and col.4 lines 1-8.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Carl” into those of “Mac” to provide a communications network architectures integrate communications using a geosynchronous satellite communications system including a geosynchronous communications satellite operating in the fixed satellite service (FSS) band and a low earth orbit satellite communications system including a plurality of low earth orbit communications satellites. A low earth orbit gateway having a terminal is used to communicate with the low earth orbit communications satellites using multiple access communication channels, and is used to communicate with a public switch telephone network.
As to claim 5. The combined system of Mac and Carl discloses the invention as in claim above including, wherein the communication network includes an overlay network system configured to receive the network traffic flow using a plurality of WAN links, wherein the method further comprises:
selecting, by the overlay network system, at least one of the plurality of WAN links over which to pass the network traffic flow based on real-time network path usage data (Carl, col.1, lines 35-55, The terminals in the geosynchronous and low earth orbit gateways communicate with a public switch telephone network (PST). A fixed terminal having a handset is used to selectively communicate with the low earth orbit communications satellite using the multiple access communication channels, or with the geosynchronous communications satellite by extracting the multiple access communication channels from the fixed channel assignments).
As to claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mac” as applied above, in view of Carlin et al. (Patent No.: US 6556828 A1), hereinafter “Carl” and further in view of Detwiler et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0385582 A1), hereinafter “Det”.
As to claim 6. The combined system of Mac and Carl discloses the invention as in claim above. Mac and Carl however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the traffic shaping policy is determined based on results of a deep packet inspection performed in the overlay network system.
Det discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the traffic shaping policy is determined based on results of a deep packet inspection performed in the overlay network system (Det, col.6, lines 15-27, the network service instances are a plurality of deep packet inspection instances that provide deep packet inspection services to traffic of client devices 100.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Det” into those of “Mac and Carl” to provide a traffic shaping circuit regulates packets transferred by a transmission resource into a network (e.g., a network on a chip) on behalf of a client. The packet transfers are selectively enabled or disabled based on a current budget value. The budget value is modified based on a packet-transfer cost in response to transferring a packet into the network. The rate of packet transfers into the network is monitored. A cost-adjustment signal is generated based on the rate of packet transfers. The packet-transfer cost is modified in response to the cost-adjustment signal for accounting for a subsequent-packet transfer into the network.
As to claim 16 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mac” as applied above, in view of Henry et al. (Pub No.: US 2020/0092752 A1), hereinafter “Henry”.
As to claim 7.Mac discloses the invention as in parent claims above. Mac however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein in response to the passenger device generating network traffic via a different communication network, the traffic shaping policy is modified.
Henry discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein in response to the passenger device generating network traffic via a different communication network, the traffic shaping policy is modified (Henry, [0028]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Henry” into those of “Mac” to provide a method comprising obtaining, from a first wireless network characterized by a first radio access technology (RAT), a first set of wireless network policies. The first set of wireless network policies characterizes a first wireless channel provided to a client device by the first wireless network. The method includes obtaining, from a second wireless network characterized by a second RAT different from the first RAT, a second set of wireless network policies. Therefore, applying traffic policy from among the multiple policies based on network.
As to claim 17 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, SRIVASTAVA VIVEK can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights