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
This non-final office action is responsive to the U.S. patent application no. 19/111,764 filed on March 13, 2025.
Claims 1-23 have been cancelled.
Claims 24-43 are pending.
Claims 24-43 are rejected.
Priority
The application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 365(a) to the international application PCT/CN2022/122865 filed on September 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2025 and July 16, 2025 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 24-37 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Monnes et al. (U.S. 2010/0278042).
Regarding claim 24, one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry to:
establish a connection state in which packets of a traffic flow are expected to be received from a device over a wireless interface (Monnes, Fig. 4 and [0004], “a user is generally able to establish a connection and communicate with or broadcast a message to multiple users.”);
detect a congestion event based the traffic flow (Monnes, [0007], “ detecting a congestion condition in a communication cell of a communication system”); and
provide a congestion experienced (CE) indication within a layer 2 (L2) packet of the traffic flow based on detection of the congestion event (Monnes, [0008], “receiving from the plurality of user equipment a report of a congestion condition when measured inter-arrival times for communication packets received by the user equipment for a predetermined number of the communication packets over a predetermined time period has exceeded a threshold value.” And [0034], “the reporting from the UEs 28 can be initiated and provided using any suitable means. For example, a monitor bit can be provided in a packet header of packets communicated to the UEs 28 from the voice server 24 that enables the reporting functionality of the various embodiments”).
Regarding claim 25, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 24.
Monnes further disclosed wherein to detect the congestion event the processor circuitry is to: determine that a packet of the traffic flow is not received within an expected period of time (Monnes, [0071], “a UE 28 can report to the voice server 24 if a running average across a plurality of packets, such as 16 packets, which can typically arrive at about 60 millisecond (ms) intervals, stays above a predetermined interval (e.g., 65 ms) for a consecutive number of measurements (e.g., 7 consecutive measurements).” The 60 ms interval disclosed by Monnes is the “expected period of time” in the claim).
Regarding claim 26, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 25.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the traffic flow is associated with a periodic traffic characteristic (Monnes disclosed in [0071] that a running average across a plurality of packets, such as 16 packets can typically arrive at about 60 millisecond (ms) intervals) and
the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to: determine a periodicity associated with the traffic flow based on the periodic traffic characteristic; and determine the expected period of time based on the periodicity (Monnes, [0071], “a UE 28 can report to the voice server 24 if a running average across a plurality of packets, such as 16 packets, which can typically arrive at about 60 millisecond (ms) intervals, stays above a predetermined interval (e.g., 65 ms) for a consecutive number of measurements (e.g., 7 consecutive measurements)”).
Regarding claim 27, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 26.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the expected period of time is an integer multiple of the periodicity (Monnes, [0071]).
Regarding claim 28, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 26.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
set a timer or counter based on the periodicity (Monnes, [0085], “a tally or count of inter-arrival times (or rates) can be maintained within the UEs 28 for use in identifying a congestion condition based on predetermined criteria and/or thresholds.”); and
detect the congestion event based on a value of the timer or counter (Monnes, [0085]).
Regarding claim 29, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 26.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the periodic traffic characteristic is defined based on a configured grant or semi-persistent scheduling of the traffic flow (Monnes disclosed in [0072] that “the window can be defined as 16 samples of the inter-arrival time and a predetermined threshold is monitored, such as, if the inter-arrival time exceeds 65 ms.” and in [0074] that “a congestion condition is determined based on whether a threshold is exceeded on a consecutive number of windows, namely the moving windows”).
Regarding claim 30, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 25.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the L2 packet is a first packet (Monnes, Fig. 7 and [0086], “congestion report 124, 126”)
the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
cause transmission of a second packet to the device, wherein the expected period of time is based on transmission of the second packet to the device (Monnes, [0070], “the voice server enables monitoring using a monitor bit and detects congestion in response to a request to the UEs 28.” Also see Monnes’s disclosure in Fig. 7 and [0086]).
Regarding claim 31, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 24.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
determine an expected data rate associated with the traffic flow (Monnes disclosed in Fig. 6 and [0085] that “ the UE 28 begins congestion monitoring, such as using the moving window process described herein to measure inter-arrival rates.);
determine an actual data rate is less than the expected data rate by a first threshold; and
detect the congestion event based on determination the actual data rate is less than the expected data rate by the first threshold (Monnes disclosed in Fig. 6 and [0085] that “As can be seen by the graph 100, during the time period 104 the UE 82 determines that the inter-arrival time/rate for a predetermined number of packets over a predetermined period of time (or windows) has continually exceeded a threshold value, indicating that there exists a consistent increase in the average arrival time/rate or inter-arrival time/rate.”. Note that inter-arrival time is inversely proportional to inter-arrival rate, meaning that when the inter-arrival time exceeds a time threshold value, the inter-arrival rate inherently falls below a rate threshold value).
Regarding claim 32, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 24.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
receive, at an access stratum layer, an indication of a traffic characteristic associated with the traffic flow (Monnes disclosed in Fig. 6 and [0085] a graph that “ illustrates tracking of inter-arrival rates of packets by user equipment …”); and
detect the congestion event based on the traffic characteristic (Monnes, [0085], “during the time period 104 the UE 82 determines that the inter-arrival time/rate for a predetermined number of packets over a predetermined period of time (or windows) has continually exceeded a threshold value, indicating that there exists a consistent increase in the average arrival time/rate or inter-arrival time/rate. Accordingly, the UE 28 thereafter reports a congestion condition with a message to the voice server 24 as indicated by the arrow 106”).
Regarding claim 33, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 24.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
detect the congestion event at a first layer; inform a second layer of the congestion event; and provide the CE indication with the second layer (Monnes, Fig. 2 and [0029-0045])
Regarding claim 34, Monnes disclosed the one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media of claim 24.
Monnes further disclosed wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor circuitry to:
transmit the L2 packet from a first queue with a priority greater than other L2 packets in the first queue (Monnes, [0045, 0060]).
Claim 35 lists substantially the same elements as claim 24, but in method form rather than computer readable media form. Therefore, the rejection rationale for claim 24 applies equally as well to claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes further disclosed detecting the congestion event based on a delay budget associated with the traffic flow (Monnes, [0071], “a UE 28 can report to the voice server 24 if a running average across a plurality of packets, such as 16 packets, which can typically arrive at about 60 millisecond (ms) intervals, stays above a predetermined interval (e.g., 65 ms) for a consecutive number of measurements (e.g., 7 consecutive measurements).” The 60 ms interval disclosed by Monnes is the “delay budget” in the claim).).
Regarding claim 37, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 36.
Monnes further disclosed detecting the congestion event based on a determination that a transmission of a protocol data unit (PDU) or group of PDUs is not confirmed as successfully transmitted within a predetermined fraction of a packet delay budget, a PDU set delay budget, or a discard timer (Monnes, [0072], “the window can be defined as 16 samples of the inter-arrival time and a predetermined threshold is monitored, such as, if the inter-arrival time exceeds 65 ms. It should be noted that the threshold can be changed, such as based on system conditions”).
Regarding claim 43, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes further disclosed further comprising: predicting a quality of a link for the traffic flow will be below a predetermined threshold; and detecting the congestion event based on predicting the quality of the link will be below the predetermined threshold (Monnes disclosed in [0026, 0041] that “Based upon the current activity and stored historical data, the estimated congestion can predict a particular congestion level, …”).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 38-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Monnes et al. (U.S. 2010/0278042) in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. 2013/0265874).
Regarding claim 38, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes might not have explicitly disclosed but Zhu disclosed comparing a round-trip time (RTT) associated with the traffic flow to a predetermined threshold; and detecting the congestion event based on comparing the RTT to the predetermined threshold (Zhu, Abstract and [0016], “During operation of the machine, the latest measurement of CI and RTT are respectively defined to be Y.sub.CI and Y.sub.RTT. The variables X.sub.CI and X.sub.RTT are used to count the number of consecutive measurements for which CI=0 and RTT.ltoreq.T.sub.1, in which T.sub.1 is a threshold to detect the end-to-end congestion”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Monnes and Zhu because both references disclosed methods for detecting congestion in networks supporting voice calls by monitoring the packet transmission delays (e.g. inter-arrival time or round-trip time) (Monnes, Abstract; Zhu, Abstract).
Regarding claim 39, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes might not have explicitly disclosed but Zhu disclosed detecting the congestion event based on a number of missing acknowledgments associated with the traffic flow being greater than a predetermined threshold (This would be obvious in view of Zhu’s disclosure of voice-over-IP protocol because checking the acknowledgement packet is a congestion control method that is built into VoIP protocols).
The rationale for combining Monnes and Zhu is the same as that provided in the rejection of claim 38 above.
Regarding claim 40, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes might not have explicitly disclosed but Zhu further disclosed detecting the congestion event based on a number of radio link control (RLC) or hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) retransmissions being greater than a predetermined threshold (Zhu, [0035, 0039-0040], “RLC performs a retransmission function using an Automatic Repeat and Request (ARQ) function”).
The rationale for combining Monnes and Zhu is the same as that provided in the rejection of claim 38 above.
Regarding claim 42, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes might not have explicitly disclosed but Zhu further disclosed determining a radio quality metric is below a predetermined threshold; and detecting the congestion event based on determining the radio quality metric is below the predetermined threshold (Zhu disclosed in [0028] that “channel quality information (CQI) feedback information provides information about the channel variation as seen by a wireless device. … a low CQI value implies adverse channel condition. By knowing that CQI is a low value, the application can limit its source rate to a minimal value to avoid buffer overflow at the uplink transmit buffer, thereby avoiding congestion.” In other words a low CQI value indicates congestion).
The rationale for combining Monnes and Zhu is the same as that provided in the rejection of claim 38 above.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Monnes et al. (U.S. 2010/0278042) in view of Johansson et al. (U.S. 2017/0251394).
Regarding claim 41, Monnes disclosed the method of claim 35.
Monnes might not have explicitly disclosed but Johansson disclosed
detecting a buffer residency time associated with one or more packets of the traffic flow is greater than a predetermined threshold; and detecting the congestion event based on detecting the buffer residency time is greater than the predetermined threshold (Johansson, [0055], “… the congestion metric is a user packet queuing delay, and may in an example embodiment be the time elapsed since the head SDU was inserted into the queue.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Monnes and Johansson because both references disclosed the needs and the methods for detecting congestion in networks supporting voice calls by monitoring the packet transmission delays (e.g. inter-arrival time or round-trip time) (Monnes, Abstract; Johansson, Abstract and [0113]).
Related Prior Art
Jian et al. (U.S. 2023/0360671) is directed to a receiving device that may estimate packet congestion at the receiving device according to the measured congestion metrics and modify connection parameters of the network connection based on the estimated packet congestion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5012. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/SHIRLEY X ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights