DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been withdrawn. No claims have been objected to. No claims have been amended. No claims are allowable. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Prior Art
Chandrasekaran et al. (US 10,644,978 B2) discloses a latency increase, estimated rate decrease algorithm whereby the percentage rate reduction of a rate limiter of an edge device is based on the rate of increase in the inbound or outbound latency measured over a period of time (col. 6, lines 58-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11, 12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segel (US 2006/0050736 A1; “Segel”) in further view of Kumar et al. (US 11,381,474 B1; “Kumar”) and Dillon et al. (US 10,637,782 B2; “Dillon”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Segel teaches or suggests a system comprising:
a gateway. The network end specialized forwarding unit (20) sits at node C of network 1 and connects it to the terrestrial route (22) and the satellite route (21, 21′), forwarding traffic between them ([0048], [0056]).
wherein the gateway comprises: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the processor to:
receive a plurality of packets for transmission over a first communication network. The network end specialized forwarding unit (20) receives the downstream traffic sourced by node B for forwarding over network 1 to the users (8-1 to 8-n) at access node A ([0043], [0049]).
wherein the plurality of packets are received via a primary network path. That traffic is the traffic of a connection using the terrestrial route (22), which travels from node B along network 1 and the terrestrial route (22) and which is split between the terrestrial route (22) and the satellite route installed in parallel to it ([0043], [0047]).
dynamically evaluate each of the received plurality of packets, based on a plurality of parameters. The traffic recognition rules unit (36, 46) examines the traffic as it arrives and identifies the individual packets based on any combination of IP port, protocol, source/destination MAC address, address type, DSCP or 802.1p priority markings, and packet size ([0060], [0063]), and that recognition is used with the link monitor’s real-time information to change the splitting decision dynamically ([0062]).
classify each of the plurality of packets into a latency sensitive packet and a latency agnostic packet based on the dynamic evaluation. The forwarding unit (20) identifies latency sensitive and latency insensitive traffic from the traffic recognized by the traffic recognition rules unit (36, 46) ([0048], [0060]).
determine network capacity of the primary network path and a secondary network path to transmit the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet for a downstream transmission. A link monitor (31, 41) measures the current performance of the terrestrial and satellite forwards ([0058]), and the splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) controls the downstream forwarding using the load the link monitor reports and the link capacity configured for each link ([0068]).
split the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet between the primary network path and the secondary network path. The traffic of a connection using the terrestrial route (22) is split between the terrestrial route (22) and the satellite route ([0047]), the latency sensitive and latency insensitive traffic being forwarded over different routes ([0048]).
split the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet between the primary network path and the secondary network path based on the determined network capacity. The splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) controls the forwarding behavior of the splitter (33, 43) based on the load and the link capacity ([0068]).
wherein for splitting the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet, the processor is to:
select the primary network path for transmitting the latency sensitive packet over the downstream transmission. The splitter (33, 43) carries out the split by forwarding each kind of traffic over its route ([0059]); in the downstream direction the latency sensitive traffic is forwarded over the terrestrial route (22) ([0048]-[0049]).
select the secondary network path for transmitting the latency agnostic packet over the downstream transmission. The latency insensitive traffic is forwarded over the satellite route (21, 21′) ([0048]-[0049]).
an ongoing communication session corresponding to the downstream transmission of an at least one packet based on the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet. A Voice over IP session, whose latency sensitive traffic is forwarded downstream over the terrestrial route (22) while latency insensitive traffic is forwarded downstream over the satellite route, is an ongoing session carried by that downstream transmission of both kinds of traffic ([0049]).
transmit the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet to a client device, based on the selection. The forwarding unit (20) forwards both kinds of traffic toward node A, where it is distributed through the access multiplexer (15) to the users (8-1 to 8-n) ([0049]), each kind of traffic being forwarded over the route selected for it ([0048]).
However, Segel does not teach or suggest, but Kumar teaches or suggests, wherein the determined network capacity of the primary network path is greater than a threshold value. An SD-WAN system (100) computes, for each WAN link (142), its available bandwidth (col. 14, lines 23-28) and, in its path selection for an application, prefers the WAN links whose available bandwidth is greater than the desired bandwidth (col. 20, lines 26-27, 34-37).
wherein the determined network capacity of the secondary network path is greater than the threshold value. The same preference applies to each WAN link considered for the application, so each link selected likewise has available bandwidth greater than the same desired bandwidth (col. 20, lines 26-29).
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 system of Segel so that the splitter forwards the latency sensitive traffic over the terrestrial route only where the available bandwidth of the terrestrial route is greater than a threshold value, and forwards the latency insensitive traffic over the satellite route only where the available bandwidth of the satellite route is greater than that threshold value, as taught by Kumar, because doing so makes the system less likely to select a link that is near or even over its bandwidth capacity, which tends to reduce service-level violations (col. 2, lines 46-56).
Further, the combination of Segel and Kumar does not teach or suggest adjust a rate limited priority queue for a continuity of the ongoing communication session. Nonetheless, Dillon teaches or suggests packet scheduler modules (230, 330) that implement a token bucket (410) sized to the throughput limit and process the packets from the WAN queues in a priority order (col. 39, lines 37-43), and a WAP (144) that dynamically adjusts the transmit and receive rates and the throughput limits based on the measured latency (col. 43, lines 17-28), so that the transmissions carried over the connections keep a consistent low latency (col. 42, lines 21-27).
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 system of Segel and Kumar so that the forwarding unit holds the latency sensitive traffic and the latency insensitive traffic in WAN queues processed in a priority order through a token bucket whose rates are dynamically adjusted based on the measured latency, as taught by Dillon, because doing so avoids an overflow of the connections, which results in a consistent low latency for the transmissions carried over them, and gives the latency-sensitive traffic preference over the non-latency-sensitive traffic, providing a reliable transport for it (col. 42, lines 21-31).
Dillon further teaches or suggests transmit the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet to a client device based on … the adjusted rate limited priority queue. The packet scheduler modules (230, 330) de-queue each packet from its WAN queue for transmission only as the available tokens of the token bucket (410) permit (col. 39, lines 37-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the forwarding unit de-queues the latency sensitive traffic and the latency insensitive traffic for transmission toward the users as the available tokens of the token bucket permit, as taught by Dillon, because doing so controls the traffic rate to avoid an overflow of the connections, which results in a consistent low latency for the transmissions carried over them (col. 42, lines 21-27).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests a network apparatus communicatively coupled to the gateway. The customer end specialized forwarding unit (20′) is connected to the network end forwarding unit (20) over the terrestrial route (22) and the satellite route (21, 21′) ([0048], [0057]).
wherein the network apparatus is to:
download the latency sensitive packet transmitted over the primary network path, and the latency agnostic packet transmitted over the secondary network path. The customer end unit (20′), which performs each of the following operations ([0057]), receives the downstream traffic flow over the satellite route (21′) at interface (38) and over the terrestrial route (22) at interface (39) ([0056]).
merge the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet at real-time in an ongoing session. The downstream traffic merger (35) combines the traffic arriving from the satellite route and the terrestrial route ([0057]), including the traffic of a Voice over IP session as it is forwarded ([0049]).
output the merged latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet at the ongoing session. The combined traffic is forwarded through the access multiplexer (15) to the users (8-1 to 8-n) ([0049]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests wherein the primary network path corresponds to a terrestrial network. The latency sensitive traffic is forwarded over the terrestrial route (22) through network 1 ([0043], [0048]).
wherein … the secondary network path corresponds to a satellite network. The latency insensitive traffic is forwarded over the satellite route (21, 21′) through the satellite (10) ([0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests wherein the primary network path corresponds to a two-way communication link and the secondary network path corresponds to a one-way communication link. The terrestrial route (22) carries bidirectional communication ([0043]), and the satellite route may use one-way satellite communications ([0052]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests wherein the plurality of parameters include at least one of port addresses, historical characteristics of a session, packet size, network capacity, packet error rate, and packet metadata. The traffic recognition rules unit (36, 46) identifies traffic based on, among other parameters, the IP port and the packet size ([0063]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests wherein the network capacity is determined based on at least one of network status information, the plurality of parameters, latency parameters, network congestion information, forward network queue and a backend network queue based on load over ongoing communication sessions. The splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) controls the forwarding behavior of the splitter (33, 43) based on the load from the link monitor (31, 41) and the link capacity as configured through the management interface (50, 50′), so that the capacity the terrestrial route has left for the traffic, beyond which overflow is always carried on the satellite route, is determined from that load ([0068]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segel, Kumar, and Dillon, as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, in further view of Harrington (US 11,689,281 B2; “Harrington”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 2, and Segel further teaches or suggests wherein the network apparatus comprises an outdoor receiver satellite unit. The satellite transceiver (2′) and the customer end specialized forwarding unit (20′) may be implemented in a piece of equipment directly at a customer’s premises, the satellite transceiver (2′) being drawn on the outside of the house of that customer (8-1) ([0053]; fig. 3).
However, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon does not teach or suggest wherein the network apparatus comprises … an outdoor terrestrial antenna. Nonetheless, Harrington teaches or suggests a terminal (5) whose outdoor unit includes an IP Radio (300) having one or more cellular antennas (315) (col. 6, lines 49-54).
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 system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the customer end specialized forwarding unit comprises an outdoor unit that includes an IP Radio having one or more cellular antennas, as taught by Harrington, because doing so improves signal reception, giving the customer more options for service providers along with better quality of service (col. 3, lines 37-41).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segel, Kumar, and Dillon, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Dillon (US 2020/0396150 A1; “the Dillon Publication”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests:
wherein to dynamically evaluate each of the received plurality of packets, based on the plurality of parameters, the processor is to:
map the plurality of parameters with corresponding parameters … and dynamically evaluate each of the received plurality of packets based on results of mapping. In evaluating each packet based on its parameters, the traffic recognition rules unit (36, 46) matches the traffic against defined profiles and patterns, using the IP port, protocol, address, priority markings, and packet size of each packet, and the identification of each packet results from that matching ([0063]).
Kumar further teaches or suggests the corresponding parameters stored in a network table. An SD-WAN application (306) identifies the packets of each application flow from their packet characteristics, and the information for identifying traffic for application sessions is stored in flow tables (col. 18, lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the corresponding parameters against which the traffic recognition rules unit matches each packet are stored in flow tables, as taught by Kumar, because doing so allows faster processing (col. 18, lines 15-17).
However, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon does not teach or suggest wherein the network table indicates a latency type to be associated with the received plurality of packets and the latency type indicated in the table is determined based on measures of expected latency of the plurality of network transports. Nonetheless, the Dillon Publication teaches or suggests a classifier (205) that examines each packet’s content and assigns it a class of service ([0133]), the classes being latency classes, namely Very Low Latency Required, Low Latency Required, and Bulk Transfer ([0135]-[0137]), and a look-up table (620) holding an entry for each class of service ([0148]), the transport indicated by each entry being determined by finding the minimum estimated latency of each transport ([0150]).
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 system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the flow tables indicate, for the received packets, a class of service that is a latency class, and the entry for each class of service is determined by finding the minimum estimated latency of each of the terrestrial route and the satellite route, as taught by the Dillon Publication, because doing so lowers the latency of the packets of each latency class by sending them over whichever of the terrestrial route and the satellite route is expected to provide the lower latency, a table look-up taking the place of computing the expected latencies each time a selection decision is made ([0138], [0150]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segel, Kumar, and Dillon, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Pauwels et al. (US 2022/0086542 A1; “Pauwels”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests:
wherein the processor is to:
receive network status information. The forwarding unit’s processing hardware performs each of the following operations; the splitter (33, 43) receives from the link monitor (31, 41) real-time information on the availability and performance of the links ([0058], [0062]).
receive … the plurality of parameters. The traffic recognition rules unit (36, 46) receives each packet and examines its parameters ([0063]).
receive … latency parameters. The splitter (33, 43) receives from the link monitor (31, 41) current performance data that includes the latency or delay of each link ([0058]; claim 24).
receive … network congestion information. The splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) receives the load of each link from the link monitor (31, 41) ([0068]).
estimate an available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on the received network status information. The link monitor (31, 41) provides real-time information on the availability and performance of the links ([0062]), the performance data including throughput and capacity fill (claim 24), and the splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) normally uses the satellite route only as an overflow link but has it pick up all traffic in the event of problems with the terrestrial route observed by the link monitor, so that the capacity the terrestrial route has left for the downstream traffic is estimated from that information ([0068]-[0069]).
estimate the available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on … the network congestion information. The splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) controls the forwarding behavior of the splitter (33, 43) based on the load from the link monitor (31, 41) and the link capacity as configured through the management interface (50, 50′), so that the capacity the terrestrial route has left for the downstream traffic, beyond which overflow is always carried on the satellite route, is estimated from that load ([0068]).
prioritize the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet between the primary network path and the secondary network path based on the estimated available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet. The latency sensitive traffic is preferentially forwarded over the terrestrial route and the latency insensitive traffic over the satellite route ([0048]), the splitting decision rules unit (34, 44) allocating the traffic between the routes based on the load and capacity of each link ([0068]).
Dillon further teaches or suggests that the network status information, the plurality of parameters, the latency parameters, and the network congestion information are received from at least one of a first network transport modem and a second network transport modem. The VPN router (142), within a separate core of which the WAP (144) may be implemented (col. 11, lines 42-46) and whose processing hardware performs these operations, recognizes link characteristics information from the modems (148, 152) (col. 39, lines 60-67); the traffic between the VPN router (142) and the VPN gateway (126) is carried over the WAN transports via the modems (148, 152) (col. 42, lines 43-50); the WAP (144) measures the one-way latency in both directions across those WAN transports through probe transactions (col. 42, lines 61-66); and the loading of the WAN connections is monitored via the modems (col. 42, lines 21-23).
Dillon further teaches or suggests receive … forward network queue and a backend network queue from at least one of the first network transport modem and the second network transport modem. The transmit rate is set so that the queue of the broadband modem for packets awaiting transmission across the broadband connection remains loaded (col. 47, lines 38-40), and the receive rate limit so that the queue of the network-side modem, the broadband equivalent of a DSLAM, for packets awaiting transmission to the broadband modem remains loaded (col. 49, lines 62-66), by the TELQO functionality, which dynamically monitors the loading of the WAN connections via the modems and VPN gateway and controls the traffic rate, so that the loading of those queues is obtained through that monitoring (col. 42, lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the forwarding unit receives via the modems the link characteristics information, the traffic, the one-way latency measured across the WAN transports, and the loading of the WAN connections, which it monitors via the modems and VPN gateway, and obtains through that monitoring the loading of the queue of the broadband modem and of the queue of the network-side modem, as taught by Dillon, because doing so allows the traffic rate to be controlled to avoid an overflow of the connections, which keeps latency consistently low (col. 42, lines 21-27).
Dillon further teaches or suggests estimate the available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on … the plurality of parameters. The TelqoRxBwAlloc (1017) recalculates each period the receive rate limit for each tunnel from the target receive rate and the receive activity of the tunnel (col. 56, lines 58-62), which it monitors through the RxTrafficShaper (1031) (col. 49, lines 25-28), which classifies each flow by priority from its IP protocol, source/destination address, and port (col. 50, lines 13-14, 27-31), each priority class being assigned the Governed or the Ungoverned packet forwarding classification (col. 42, lines 3-20), and the Governed bandwidth being the total available bandwidth not including the bandwidth used by Ungoverned traffic (col. 53, lines 25-30).
Dillon further teaches or suggests estimate the available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on … the latency parameters. The WAP (144) determines target transmit and receive rates from the measured latency and adjusts the throughput limits (col. 42, lines 66-67; col. 43, lines 1-2, 25-28).
Dillon further teaches or suggests estimate the available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on … the forward network queue. The receive rate limits are set such that the queue of the network-side modem, the broadband equivalent of a DSLAM, for packets awaiting transmission to the broadband modem remains loaded to the extent that bulk transmission data traffic uses substantially all of the capacity of the broadband connection (col. 49, lines 62-67; col. 50, line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the forwarding unit determines the target receive rate of each of the terrestrial route and the satellite route from the measured latency, setting the receive rate so that the queue of the network-side modem remains loaded, and recalculates each period the receive rate limit from that target receive rate and the receive activity of the traffic, classified by priority, with the Governed bandwidth not including the bandwidth used by Ungoverned traffic, as taught by Dillon, because doing so avoids an overflow of the connections as latency and loading change and keeps the latency of the transmissions consistently low (col. 42, lines 21-27; col. 43, lines 17-28).
Dillon further teaches or suggests wherein the latency sensitive packet and the latency agnostic packet is prioritized using a rate-limited priority queue. The packet scheduler modules (230, 330) process the packets from the WAN queues in a priority order through a token bucket (410) sized to the throughput limit (col. 39, lines 37-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the latency sensitive traffic and the latency insensitive traffic prioritized between the terrestrial route and the satellite route are processed from the WAN queues in a priority order through a token bucket sized to the throughput limit, as taught by Dillon, because doing so ensures that the real-time traffic is typically processed with the least amount of queuing delay (col. 39, lines 40-43).
However, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon does not teach or suggest estimate the available network capacity for the downstream transmission of the at least one packet based on … the backend network queue. Nonetheless, Pauwels teaches or suggests an optical line termination (110), whose processing hardware performs this operation and which receives from each optical network unit (140) the fill level of that unit’s downstream packet buffer (143) ([0116], [0138]), a buffer that temporarily stores the data packets destined for the unit’s user network interface (144) ([0131]), and whose scheduler (114) changes the rate at which data packets are scheduled for downstream transmission to that unit with the deviation of that reported fill level ([0138]-[0139]), so that the downstream capacity available toward that unit is estimated from that fill level, even if the downstream capacity of the distribution network allows higher data rates ([0125]).
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 system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the forwarding unit receives via the modems, for each of the terrestrial route and the satellite route, the fill level of the downstream packet buffer at the customer end of that route, a buffer that temporarily stores the data packets awaiting transmission from that end, and changes the rate at which data packets are scheduled for downstream transmission over that route with the deviation of that reported fill level, as taught by Pauwels, because doing so lets the downstream transmissions over each route be scheduled with reduced risk of overrun or underrun of the downstream packet buffer at the customer end of that route, including when the quality and capacity of the onward link from that end drops ([0131]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segel, Kumar, and Dillon, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Dolganow et al. (US 8,837,287 B2; “Dolganow”).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon teaches or suggests the system of claim 1, and Segel further teaches or suggests:
the processor is to:
predict network traffic at an ongoing session. The forwarding unit’s splitter (33, 43), whose processing hardware performs this operation, decides how the traffic is split using the link monitor’s information together with the splitting rules and its recognition of the inbound traffic ([0059], [0062]), prioritizing the recognized inbound sub-flows between the satellite and terrestrial routes by link performance and status factors that include the expected traffic demand associated with a particular traffic flow and are recognized by time-series forecasting of trends in those factors (claims 31 and 33).
However, the combination of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon does not teach or suggest predict the network traffic at the ongoing session based on one or more user activities performed at the ongoing session. Nonetheless, Dolganow teaches or suggests a network node (130), whose processing hardware performs these operations and whose deep packet inspection device (135) examines the packets of an IP flow to identify the application associated with it (col. 8, lines 7-10), and which determines the bandwidth the flow will require from the estimated bandwidth field (460) for that application, for example 6 mbps for an HD video session, without reference to the actual bandwidth used (col. 4, lines 46-52; col. 7, lines 35-37, 48-50).
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 system of Segel, Kumar, and Dillon so that the forwarding unit determines the expected traffic demand of each traffic flow from the estimated bandwidth for the application that deep packet inspection identifies for that flow, as taught by Dolganow, because doing so lets the forwarding unit ensure that establishment of a new flow does not affect existing flows, minimizing the burden on the network while maintaining a high quality of experience for the subscriber (col. 2, lines 39-46).
Dolganow further teaches or suggests pre-allot the network capacity associated with the corresponding network path for transmission of the packet based on the predicted network traffic. Having determined the bandwidth the flow requires, the network node (130) admits the flow and updates the current amount of bandwidth utilized by the subscriber based on the bandwidth required for it (col. 9, lines 31-35), that bandwidth counting against the bandwidth guaranteed to the subscriber for its Internet service over the access network (120) that connects the subscriber to the network node (130) (col. 3, lines 18-19, 38-40; col. 4, lines 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Segel, Kumar, Dillon, and Dolganow so that before forwarding an IP flow over its route, the forwarding unit admits the flow and updates the current amount of bandwidth utilized on that route by the bandwidth required for the flow, as taught by Dolganow, because doing so ensures that establishment of a flow does not affect existing flows, maintaining a high quality of experience for the subscriber (col. 2, lines 42-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding application status may be obtained from Patent Center; unpublished application information is available there to authorized users. Questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system may be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
