DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on August 4th, 2026.
Claims 1~20 are rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 8), that Gholmieh does not disclose a “unified data stream”. Examiner respectfully disagree because Gholmieh taught a single path routing may be used for routing IP packets. Routing IP packets via a single path may reduce (e.g., minimize) re-ordering of packets on the receiver/destination side in comparison to routing IP packets via all available delivery paths [¶37]. Gholmieh further taught both types of traffic (e.g., TCP traffic and UDP traffic) may use the same scheduler [¶44]. Examiner notes that by using the same scheduler, both types of traffic may be scheduled over a single selected path. Gholmieh finally taught, when UDP packets are being assigned to all modems, a switch period may not be required, and the modem meeting a selection criterion may be selected as the one of the plurality of modems for transport of all IP packets, both TCP and UDP packets [¶45]. The passages cited thus shows that the single selected path for the IP traffic can be transmitted via a single selected modem despite having the capabilities to transmit TCP and UDP traffic separately based on bandwidth estimates.
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 10), that Gholmieh does not disclose QoS data. Examiner respectfully disagree because Applicants point out in the specification that obtaining quality of service data of a first unified stream is collected from the unified data stream during its transmission and includes congestion control data. However, the claims do not recite the QoS data is collected from the unified data stream. The claim also does not require the unified data stream to include the congestion control data. Given broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interpret the QoS data may be obtained in a different manner with Gholmieh teaching, scheduling the TCP and UDP packet transmission is dependent upon a modem with the highest available bandwidth selected from the plurality of modems for transporting IP packet [¶39], and different categories (or types) of traffic scheduled using different or same schedulers. For example, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) traffic may be scheduled using a scheduler configured to schedule traffic over a single selected path based at least in part on bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing and one or more selection criteria [¶44]. Since Applicant argued the QoS data is collected from the unified stream itself and used to generate scheduling information, it is recommended the claims be amended so that this feature is positively captured.
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 11), that Gholmieh does not teach "scheduling information". Examiner respectfully disagree because Applicant’s explanation that scheduling information indicates “bandwidth planning…” and that “the universal transport module dynamically adjusts available bandwidths…” are features not positively recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 13), that Jiang does not disclose “adjusting, based on the scheduling information, a transmission bandwidth of the data packets” as recited in claim 5. Examiner point out that the purpose of the claim is to adjust the rate of the packets being transmitted so that the paths don’t get congested. In a similar concept, Jiang taught if the flows of Flow1-Flow100 suddenly increase to 20M at this time, because the total bandwidth of the user traffic flows at this time exceeds the allocable bandwidths of link B->D and link D->F, the link B->D and link D->F trigger the adjustment of the packet loss rate and the forwarding path.
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 16), that Kakadia’s DSCP field is not the claimed “label”. Examiner point out that the purpose of the claim is to label the data packets that comprise of attributes such as priorities and types. In a similar concept, Kakadia taught the network monitoring apparatus 210 may add the name, descriptions, and/or other labels for the ports, links 160, and switches 110 that the probe packet was most recently transmitted from and destined for [¶52]. So while the label taught by Kakadia is not the same label as Applicant’s claims the concept of providing information about the data packets being transmitted in the network are similar.
In response to Applicant's argument (Pg. 16), that Kakadia’s sequencing information is not “transmission attributes”. Examiner respectfully disagree because Applicant’s explanation that transmission attributes indicates “retransmission needed…” is a feature not positively recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10-12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by application US20180279175A1 by Gholmieh et al.
Regarding claim 1, Gholmieh et al. discloses a method ([0004] The systems, methods, and devices of the various embodiments provide for multipath transport of Internet Protocol (IP) packets by a computing device including a plurality of modems.), comprising:
obtaining quality of service (QoS) data of a first unified data stream of one or more media services, wherein the first unified data stream comprises data packets of at least two types selected from: an audio data packet, a video data packet, and a media signaling data packet ([0044] bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [QoS is defined by the reference as bandwidth in 0059 0069 111 and 116] [0054] video data . . . audio data; [0049]; [102]; [0112]);
generating, based on the QoS data, scheduling information indicating a bandwidth for transmitting each type of the at least two types and a path of the first unified data stream ([0044] In various embodiments, different categories (or types) of traffic may be scheduled using different schedulers. For example, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) traffic may be scheduled using a scheduler configured to schedule traffic over a single selected path based at least in part on bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [based on the QoS data] [0071] The IP level scheduler 404 may deliver the IP streams . . . The IP stack (or layer) may provide a suggested transmit rate per source whenever needed. [indicating a bandwidth for transmitting]); and
transmitting, based on the scheduling information, the first unified data stream ([0116] the scheduler of the in-vehicle computing device may further assign packets for transport based on delivery delays and path priorities; [0106]).
Regarding claim 2, Gholmieh et al. discloses wherein the QoS data comprise congestion control data and wherein the congestion control data comprise a maximum estimated bandwidth (bandwidth estimates) [¶43, the selection criterion may be to pick the highest bandwidth modem (e.g., a modem with the largest air interface bandwidth estimate, largest end-to-end bandwidth estimate, etc.); ¶111, delivery paths may be prioritized relative to one another based on one or more path attributes associated with the delivery paths, such as cost, bandwidth, quality-of-service (QoS), etc.].
Regarding claim 3, Gholmieh et al. discloses wherein the QoS data is for data transmission between a terminal side and an edge side [¶48, In various embodiments, a backend server [the backend server is interpreted as the edge side because it is closest to the service provider] may route traffic to a computing device including a plurality of modems [the plurality of modems are interpreted as the terminal side because the streaming traffic flows in the direction of the modems] via a selected one of the plurality of modems. For example, the backend server may route traffic to the modem associated with the path carrying TCP traffic. For example, the backend server may route traffic to the modem associated with the path having lowest path delay. For example, the backend server may route traffic to the modem associated with a path indicated by the computing device].
Regarding claim 9, Gholmieh et al. discloses wherein the one or more media services comprise one or more of a real time communication service, a cloud desktop office service, a cloud desktop design service, or a cloud gaming service [¶34~¶36, Further examples of scenarios in which reliable, near real time data transport is needed for vehicles, such as driverless cars, include: transport of on-vehicle sensor data, e.g., tachometers, accelerometers, etc., to remote vehicle diagnostic services; transport of vehicle camera images to other vehicles to alert such other vehicles of traffic patterns].
Regarding claim 10, Gholmieh et al. discloses an apparatus, a memory configured to store instructions, and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor ([0004] The systems, methods, and devices of the various embodiments provide for multipath transport of Internet Protocol (IP) packets by a computing device including a plurality of modems. [0131] The processors 1501 and 1601 may be any programmable microprocessor, microcomputer or multiple processor chip or chips that can be configured by software instructions (applications) to perform a variety of functions, including the functions of the various embodiments described above . . . The processors 1501 and 1601 may include internal memory sufficient to store the application software instructions.), cause the apparatus to: obtain quality of service (QoS) data of a first unified data stream of one or more media services, wherein the first unified data stream comprises data packets of at least two types selected from: an audio data packet, a video data packet, and a media signaling data packet ([0044] bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [QoS is defined by the reference as bandwidth in 0059 0069 111 and 116] [0054] video data . . . audio data; [0049]; [102]; [0112]); generate, based on the QoS data, scheduling information indicating a bandwidth for transmitting each type of the at least two types and a path of the first unified data stream ([0044] In various embodiments, different categories (or types) of traffic may be scheduled using different schedulers. For example, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) traffic may be scheduled using a scheduler configured to schedule traffic over a single selected path based at least in part on bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [based on the QoS data] [0071] The IP level scheduler 404 may deliver the IP streams . . . The IP stack (or layer) may provide a suggested transmit rate per source whenever needed. [indicating a bandwidth for transmitting]); and transmit, based on the scheduling information, the first unified data stream ([0116] the scheduler of the in-vehicle computing device may further assign packets for transport based on delivery delays and path priorities; [0106]).
Regarding claim 19, Gholmieh et al. discloses a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor ([0135] In various embodiments, the functions described may be implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof. If implemented in software, the functions may be stored as one or more instructions or code on a non-transitory computer-readable medium or non-transitory processor-readable medium.), cause an apparatus to: obtain quality of service (QoS) data of a unified data stream of one or more media services, wherein the unified data stream comprises data packets of at least two types selected from: an audio data packet, a video data packet, and a media signaling data packet ([0044] bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [QoS is defined by the reference as bandwidth in 0059 0069 111 and 116] [0054] video data . . . audio data; [0049]; [102]; [0112]); generate, based on the QoS data, scheduling information indicating a bandwidth for transmitting each type of the at least two types and a path of the unified data stream ([0044] In various embodiments, different categories (or types) of traffic may be scheduled using different schedulers. For example, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) traffic may be scheduled using a scheduler configured to schedule traffic over a single selected path based at least in part on bandwidth estimates, bandwidth probing [based on the QoS data] [0071] The IP level scheduler 404 may deliver the IP streams . . . The IP stack (or layer) may provide a suggested transmit rate per source whenever needed. [indicating a bandwidth for transmitting]); and transmit, based on the scheduling information, the unified data stream ([0116] the scheduler of the in-vehicle computing device may further assign packets for transport based on delivery delays and path priorities; [0106]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the limitations of claims 11 and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 9 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over application US20180279175A1 by Gholmieh et al. in view of application CN113194037A by Jiang.
Regarding claim 5, Gholmieh et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gholmieh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises adjusting, based on the scheduling information, a transmission bandwidth of the data packets.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Jiang discusses a traffic scheduling device that adjusts paths, links, and bandwidths of transmitted data streams by comparing a predicted bandwidth of the stream with a threshold bandwidth value. Jiang teaches wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises adjusting, based on the scheduling information, a transmission bandwidth of the data packets ([page 5 paragraph 8] obtaining the real-time bandwidth of the link according to the newly reported service flow data and link data of the network device, and predicting the real-time bandwidth of the link [the real-time bandwidth is an estimated bandwidth]; compared with the real-time bandwidth of the link only using link data, the specification updates the real-time bandwidth of the predicted link [the real-time bandwidth of the stream is updated after it is compared to the predicted real-time bandwidth] according to the service flow data,).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scheduler of Gholmieh per Jiang to allow the modified invention to optimize bandwidth utilization by assigning streams that require higher bandwidths to paths that support higher bandwidths and assigning streams that require lower bandwidths to paths that support lower bandwidths.
Regarding claim 6, Gholmieh et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gholmieh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: identifying that the QoS data indicates that a predicted available bandwidth of the first unified data stream on a first link is less than a threshold; and adjusting, in response to identifying that the QoS data indicates that the predicted available bandwidth is less than the threshold and based on the scheduling information, a transmission path of the first unified data stream to a second link.
However, Jiang teaches wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: identifying that the QoS data indicates that a predicted available bandwidth of the first unified data stream on a first link is less than a threshold; and adjusting, in response to identifying that the QoS data indicates that the predicted available bandwidth is less than the threshold and based on the scheduling information, a transmission path of the first unified data stream to a second link ([page 4 paragraph 1] if determining the real-time bandwidth of the link according to the current link data is greater than the allocated bandwidth of the link, and the predicted link real-time bandwidth is less than the allocated bandwidth of the link [the allocated bandwidth of the link is the threshold], then after waiting for the preset time, then using the newly-sent link data and service flow data for adjusting the path [the path is adjusted based on whether the predicted real-time bandwidth is less than a threshold] currently deployed by the service flow. [page 15 paragraph 14] According to the cost of the link, the flow21-flow47 is considered to be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7. performing LCBWF [LCBWF (Link Current Bandwidth Forcast) is the link real-time bandwidth predicted value] calculation according to the real-time bandwidth FBW of LCBWF=LCBW + service flow aiming at flow21 ~ flow47 stream, finally LCBWF=405M; At this time, the LCBWF [the predicted/estimated bandwidth] corresponding to the link 6 and the link 7 is less than the preset ratio 80 % of the bandwidth LMRBW [the ratio of the LMRBW bandwidth is a threshold], so the flow21 ~ flow47 can be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scheduler of Gholmieh per Jiang to allow the modified invention to optimize bandwidth utilization by assigning streams that require higher bandwidths to paths that support higher bandwidths and assigning streams that require lower bandwidths to paths that support lower bandwidths.
Regarding claim 7, Gholmieh et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gholmieh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: adjusting, based on the scheduling information, transmission paths of second unified data streams corresponding to different media services responsive to the QoS data indicating that predicted bandwidths of the different media services are different.
However, Jiang teaches wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: adjusting, based on the scheduling information, transmission paths of second unified data streams corresponding to different media services responsive to the QoS data indicating that predicted bandwidths of the different media services are different ([page 4 paragraph 1] if determining the real-time bandwidth of the link according to the current link data is greater than the allocated bandwidth of the link, and the predicted link real-time bandwidth is less than the allocated bandwidth of the link [the allocated bandwidth of the link is the threshold], then after waiting for the preset time, then using the newly-sent link data and service flow data for adjusting the path [the path is adjusted based on whether the predicted real-time bandwidth is less than a threshold] currently deployed by the service flow. [page 15 paragraph 14] According to the cost of the link, the flow21-flow47 is considered to be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7. performing LCBWF [LCBWF (Link Current Bandwidth Forcast) is the link real-time bandwidth predicted value] calculation according to the real-time bandwidth FBW of LCBWF=LCBW + service flow aiming at flow21 ~ flow47 stream, finally LCBWF=405M; At this time, the LCBWF [the predicted/estimated bandwidth] corresponding to the link 6 and the link 7 is less than the preset ratio 80 % of the bandwidth LMRBW [the ratio of the LMRBW bandwidth is a threshold], so the flow21 ~ flow47 can be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7. [page 14 paragraph 9] continuing the above example, can determine the type of service flow for each service flow. Specifically, for each service flow calculation on the current deployment link and the adjusted link whether there is the service flow of the adjusting or adjusting the record. if it does not exist (it indicates that the current service flow is not scheduled in the current LDICT period), so it can record the current service flow of the current deployment link record, and through the step 405 the current deployment link and the new link to be deployed real-time bandwidth for prediction; to obtain LCBWF corresponding to each link. [each service flow deployed on a link can have a different predicted bandwidth]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scheduler of Gholmieh per Jiang to allow the modified invention to optimize bandwidth utilization by assigning streams that require higher bandwidths to paths that support higher bandwidths and assigning streams that require lower bandwidths to paths that support lower bandwidths.
Regarding claim 8, Gholmieh et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gholmieh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the different media services comprise a first service and a second service, and wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: identifying that the QoS data indicates that a first predicted bandwidth of a third unified data stream from among the second unified data streams and corresponding to the first service on a first link is greater than a threshold; and adjusting, in response to identifying that the QoS data indicates that the first predicted bandwidth is greater than the threshold and based on the scheduling information, a transmission path of a fourth unified data stream from among the second unified data streams and corresponding to the second service from the first link to a second link.
However, Jiang teaches wherein the different media services comprise a first service and a second service, and wherein transmitting the first unified data stream comprises: identifying that the QoS data indicates that a first predicted bandwidth of a third unified data stream from among the second unified data streams and corresponding to the first service on a first link is greater than a threshold; and adjusting, in response to identifying that the QoS data indicates that the first predicted bandwidth is greater than the threshold and based on the scheduling information, a transmission path of a fourth unified data stream from among the second unified data streams and corresponding to the second service from the first link to a second link ([page 4 paragraph 1] if determining the real-time bandwidth of the link according to the current link data is greater than the allocated bandwidth of the link, and the predicted link real-time bandwidth is less than the allocated bandwidth of the link [the allocated bandwidth of the link is the threshold], then after waiting for the preset time, then using the newly-sent link data and service flow data for adjusting the path [the path is adjusted based on whether the predicted real-time bandwidth is less than a threshold] currently deployed by the service flow. [page 15 paragraph 14] According to the cost of the link, the flow21-flow47 is considered to be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7. performing LCBWF [LCBWF (Link Current Bandwidth Forcast) is the link real-time bandwidth predicted value] calculation according to the real-time bandwidth FBW of LCBWF=LCBW + service flow aiming at flow21 ~ flow47 stream, finally LCBWF=405M; At this time, the LCBWF [the predicted/estimated bandwidth] corresponding to the link 6 and the link 7 is less than the preset ratio 80 % of the bandwidth LMRBW [the ratio of the LMRBW bandwidth is a threshold], so the flow21 ~ flow47 can be adjusted to the link 6 and the link 7. [page 9 paragraph 14] LFDH (Link Flow Deploy History) records all the services in the service flow collection period (after LLDICT) to call out the link, or adjust the history record of the link. [different services may be transmitted on each path as shown by the path adjustment and the fact that a history of each service transmitted on the path is retained]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scheduler of Gholmieh per Jiang to allow the modified invention to optimize bandwidth utilization by assigning streams that require higher bandwidths to paths that support higher bandwidths and assigning streams that require lower bandwidths to paths that support lower bandwidths.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 6 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 8 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over application US20180279175A1 by Gholmieh et al. in view of application US20180152384A1 by Kakadia et al.
Regarding claim 4, Gholmieh et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1. Gholmieh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the data packets comprise labels, indicating stream attribute information of the data packets, and wherein the stream attribute information comprises priorities, types, and transmission attributes of the at least two types.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kakadia et al. discusses a system that monitors quality of service indicator values of received packets containing fields. Kakadia et al. teaches wherein the data packets comprise labels, indicating stream attribute information of the data packets, and wherein the stream attribute information comprises priorities, types, and transmission attributes of the at least two types ([0041] a TCP/IPv4 packet begins with a new packet preamble and delimiter 310, most of which is not shown. After the delimiter, an Ethernet frame header 320 includes a media access control (MAC) address for the packet's immediate destination (i.e., the network device or switch next receiving the packet) and a MAC address for the packet's immediate source (i.e., the network device or switch transmitting the packet) . . . The differentiated services code point (DSCP) field 332, also known as the QoS field or type of service (ToS) field [types], is used to represent the packet's traffic class and the priority that the packet should receive when transmitted through the network. An IPv6 packet header has a “Traffic Class” field that is similar to the IPv4 DSCP field. The protocol field 334 defines the layout of the header that will immediately follow the IPv4 or IPv6 header. [0042] The typical TCP header begins with a 16-bit source port identifier and a 16-bit destination port identifier. The TCP header 340 then specifies sequencing information including a sequence number for the packet, an acknowledgement number, and a data offset. [transmission attributes]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the scheduler of Gholmieh per Kakadia to allow the modified invention to improve the quality of the stream when it is received by customers’ user equipment.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Conclusion
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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
