DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 11/14/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 11/14/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US 20200053018 A1), hereinafter “White”; and in further view of IETF “RFC 9331: The Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput”, hereinafter “IETF”.
Regarding claim 1, White teaches A method comprising:
determining, by a client device [White: Fig 2a, Par. 53], that a flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughout (L4S) flow [Fig. 5; Par. 85- 91 teaches of receiving low latency upstream service flow];
communicating that the flow is L4S using element[Fig. 3; Par. 57- 76 teaches classification module classified L4S flow using divides classic priority into sub-flow having different classic] ; and using, by an Access Point (AP), the enhanced TCLAS element to schedule the flow [Fig. 4,9B; Par. 57- 73 teaches scheduler schedule the flow using classifiers]
PNG
media_image1.png
256
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, White does not teach communicating that the flow is L4S using an enhanced Traffic Classification (TCLAS) element.
Nevertheless, IETF, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches communicating that the flow is L4S using an enhanced Traffic Classification (TCLAS) element [ITEF: section 1.3, section 5.4.1.1-1.3 teaches L4S packets are marked with DSCP for classification/ TCLAS element].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of ITEF to use DSCP element. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of ITEF in the White system with a motivation to make this modification in order to identify packets with specific indication such as DSCPs (ITEF: section 5.4 Pg. 19).
Regarding claim 2, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. White in view of ITEF further teaches wherein the enhanced TCLAS element comprises an enhance TCLAS classifier Type 1 element [ITEF: section 5. 3 & 5.4.1.1].
Regarding claim 3, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 2. White in view of ITEF further teaches wherein the enhance TCLAS classifier Type 1 element uses a Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) field based on at least one of DSCP bits and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits [ITEF: section 5. 3 & 5.4.1.1].
Regarding claim 4, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 2. White in view of ITEF further teaches wherein the enhance TCLAS classifier Type 1 element uses a reserved field based on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits [ITEF: section 5. 3 & 5.4.1.1].
Regarding claim 5, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. White in view of ITEF further teaches wherein the enhanced TCLAS element comprises an enhance TCLAS classifier Type 4 element [White: Par. 139-140 teaches ECN field of packet use different IPv4 and IPv6 (TCLAS element type 4 is for IP parameter (see spec. par. 280].
Regarding claim 6, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 5. White in view of ITEF further teaches herein the enhance TCLAS classifier Type 1 element uses a Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) field based on at least one of DSCP bits and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits [White: Par. 139].
Regarding claim 7, the combined White in view of ITEF teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 5. White in view of ITEF further teaches wherein the enhance TCLAS classifier Type 1 element uses a reserved field based on Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) bits [White: Par. 139].
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, White A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising [White: Fig 2a, Par. 53, 206], determining, by a client device, that a flow is a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughout (L4S) flow [Fig. 5; Par. 85- 91 teaches of receiving low latency upstream service flow];
communicating that the flow is L4S using element[Fig. 3; Par. 57- 76 teaches classification module classified L4S flow using divides classic priority into sub-flow having different classic] ; and using, by an Access Point (AP), the enhanced TCLAS element to schedule the flow [Fig. 4,9B; Par. 57- 73 teaches scheduler schedule the flow using classifiers]
PNG
media_image1.png
256
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, White does not teach communicating that the flow is L4S using an enhanced Traffic Classification (TCLAS) element.
Nevertheless, IETF, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches communicating that the flow is L4S using an enhanced Traffic Classification (TCLAS) element [ITEF: section 1.3, section 5.4.1.1-1.3 teaches L4S packets are marked with DSCP for classification/ TCLAS element].
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of ITEF to use DSCP element. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of ITEF in the White system with a motivation to make this modification in order to identify packets with specific indication such as DSCPs (ITEF: section 5.4 Pg. 19).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights