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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, line 1, the first occurrence of “BDP” should be spelled out.
In Claim 9, line 1, the first occurrence of “BDP” should be spelled out.
In Claim 9, line 2, the first occurrence of “RTT” should be spelled out.
In Claim 10, line 1, the first occurrence of “RTT” should be spelled out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Claims 4, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4, the term "high" in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 13, the term "high" in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 16, the term "high" in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Zetterlund et al (“Zetterlund”, US 20170155870).
Regarding Claim 1, Zetterlund teaches an apparatus for telecommunication at a network node, comprising:
a memory (par 60);
and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to (par 60):
detect at least two data streams are in use (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.),
wherein a first stream is latency sensitive (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.);
and throttle at least one second stream based at least on measured network statistics at the network node to optimize performance of the first stream (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.).
Regarding Claim 3, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect a throttling event based on the measured network statistics that the at least one second stream meets a triggering condition that initiates the throttling of the at least one second stream (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.),
wherein the throttling of the at least one second stream is based at least on a bandwidth of the at least one second stream or delay statistics of the at least one second stream (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.).
Regarding Claim 4, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Zetterlund further teaches wherein the triggering condition comprises at least one of:
the first stream comprising a high priority data stream (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.),
the at least one second stream being received for a time duration that exceed a timer or the bandwidth of the at least one second stream exceeding a threshold,
reception of an indication of a latency of the high priority data stream exceeding a latency threshold,
an actual queue latency or a buffer size exceeding a queue latency time duration threshold or a buffer size threshold,
or an estimated queue latency based on a traffic pattern exceeding the queue latency time duration threshold.
Regarding Claim 5, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund further teaches wherein the at least one second stream comprises a plurality of data streams (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected. The plurality of second streams is the stream that is that is received in a lower resolution and the stream that is stopped.),
wherein a throttling of the plurality of data streams is maintained (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected. The plurality of second streams is the stream that is that is received in a lower resolution and the stream that is stopped.).
Regarding Claim 6, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund further teaches wherein to throttle the at least one second stream the at least one processor is configured to: reduce an uplink transmission speed or a receiver window size (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.).
Regarding Claim 8, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach wherein a target BDP is determined for each of the at least one second stream.
Pantos teaches wherein a target BDP is determined for each of the at least one second stream (Fig. 12, elements 651-663, par 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the bandwidth delay product of Pantos because it allows for sizing buffers in order to further reduce network congestion to meet network target goals.
Regarding Claim 13, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a priority indication indicating that a flow of data is a high priority flow of data (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.),
wherein the high priority flow of data comprises latency sensitive traffic (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.),
wherein the latency sensitive traffic has priority over any of the at least one second stream (par 40; The first stream is one of the higher priority streams that are unaffected. The second stream is the stream that is received in a lower resolution (throttled). The measured network statistics is the excessive packet loss due to reduced available bandwidth detected.).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 6.
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.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zetterlund in view of Lumbatis (“Lumbatis”, US 20170034807).
Regarding Claim 2, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor.
Lumbatis teaches comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (par 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the transceiver of Lumbatis because it allows for wireless connectivity, thereby improving convenience and flexibility.
Claims 7, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zetterlund in view of Pantos (“Pantos”, US 20200267437).
Regarding Claim 7, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach wherein the reduced uplink transmission speed or the reduced receiver window size is determined based on a current downlink throughput, an estimated round trip time (RTT), or a bandwidth delay product (BDP), wherein the BDP comprises a product of a throughput and an RTT.
Pantos teaches wherein the reduced uplink transmission speed or the reduced receiver window size is determined based on a current downlink throughput,
an estimated round trip time (RTT),
or a bandwidth delay product (BDP), wherein the BDP comprises a product of a throughput and an RTT (Fig. 12, elements 651-663, par 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the bandwidth delay product of Pantos because it allows for sizing buffers in order to further reduce network congestion to meet network target goals.
Regarding Claim 10, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach wherein an estimated RTT is based on at least one of an initial RTT of the at least one second stream between the network node and a second network node, a latency estimation for a radio access network (RAN), a latency estimation for a core network, a timestamp based estimation of an RTT of the at least one second stream, or a traffic pattern based estimation of the RTT of the at least one second stream.
Pantos teaches wherein an estimated RTT is based on at least one of
an initial RTT of the at least one second stream between the network node and a second network node,
a latency estimation for a radio access network (RAN), a latency estimation for a core network,
a timestamp based estimation of an RTT of the at least one second stream (par 8),
or a traffic pattern based estimation of the RTT of the at least one second stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the bandwidth delay product of Pantos because it allows for sizing buffers in order to further reduce network congestion to meet network target goals.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zetterlund and Pantos in view of Griffoul (“Griffoul”, US 20090279429).
Regarding Claim 9, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach wherein a target BDP is based at least on a network bandwidth and an RTT, wherein the RTT is based on an estimated RTT of the at least one second stream between the network node and a second network node, and the network bandwidth is based on an amount of data associated with the at least one second stream transmitted to the network node.
Pantos teaches wherein the RTT is based on an estimated RTT of the at least one second stream between the network node and a second network node (Fig. 12, elements 651-663, par 56),
and the network bandwidth is based on an amount of data associated with the at least one second stream transmitted to the network node (par 61; par 175).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the bandwidth delay product of Pantos because it allows for sizing buffers in order to further reduce network congestion to meet network target goals.
Zetterlund and Pantos do not explicitly teach wherein a target BDP is based at least on a network bandwidth and an RTT.
Griffoul teaches wherein a target BDP is based at least on a network bandwidth and an RTT (par 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund and Pantos with the telecommunications network of Griffoul because it optimizes the control of traffic (Griffoul; par 1-2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zetterlund in view of Chiu et al (“Chiu”, US 20180109463).
Regarding Claim 12, Zetterlund teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Zetterlund does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive an indication comprising a buffer size or a queueing latency at a network entity.
Chiu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive an indication comprising a buffer size or a queueing latency at a network entity (par 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zetterlund with the buffer size notification of Chiu because it allows for the system to know when the buffer size is higher than a capable threshold buffer size (Chiu; par 9), so that the system is not overloaded, thereby further improving performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 11 the closest prior art of Zetterlund et al (US 20170155870) in view of Lumbatis (“Lumbatis”, US 20170034807) in further view of Pantos (“Pantos”, US 20200267437) and in even further view of does not teach an apparatus for telecommunication at a network node, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: detect at least two data streams are in use, wherein a first stream is latency sensitive; and throttle at least one second stream based at least on measured network statistics at the network node to optimize performance of the first stream; wherein the throttling the at least one second stream further comprising: reducing an uplink transmission speed or a receiver window size; wherein if a triggering condition that initiates the throttling the at least one second stream is not satisfied, the throttling the at least one second stream further comprising: terminating the throttling the at least one second stream; and resetting the uplink transmission speed and the receiver window size to a default value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KANAMARLAPUDI et al (US 20230379241), Abstract - Apparatus, methods, and computer program products for processing QoS flows are provided. An example method may include establishing a PDU session with a second device, the PDU session including a set of QoS flows, the set of QoS flows being associated with a set of DRBs. The example method may further include communicating with the second device based on the set of QoS flows.
Nemeth et al (US 20240396846), Abstract - An application server side network predicts, based at least on a feedback of traffic latency, a congestion in a traffic between the application server side network and at least one user equipment (UE) of one or more UEs in a radio access network (RAN) of the application server side network based on a total RAN network load and traffics between the application server side network and the one or more UEs. The application server side network controls the congestion in response to an increase in a queueing delay in the traffic between the application server side network and the at least one UE as well as an increase in a data rate and quality of service (QoS) parameters of the traffic, with the traffic including an extended reality (XR) traffic associated with an XR client-side application executed on the at least one UE.
AKL et al (US 20220132391), Abstract - In an IAB network, a third network node sends QoS mapping information to a first network node to configure an IP header for a packet based on a traffic type and to transmit the packet. The third network node sends a mapping configuration to a second network node to map information in the IP header for the packet received in a first routing path from the first network node to a second routing path. The first network node receives the QoS mapping information and generates a packet associated with the traffic type and including an IP header, which is configured based on the received QoS mapping information. The first network node transmits the packet for routing to the second network node.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights