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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
IDS filed on 5/29/25 and 1/23/26 are considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 12 are 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.
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.
Claims 6 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claims 6 and 15, the claims recite the limitation “wherein a difference between the start time and the first time is positively correlated with a size of the first data flow”, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by the recited “positively correlated” relationship. The claim recites a particular difference between the start time and the first time and a particular size of the first data flow, but does not specify the plurality of the values, observations, or conditions over which the asserted positive correlation is determined. Accordingly, it is unclear what relationship between the time difference, and the size of the data flow is required to satisfy the limitation. It is unclear whether the claim requires the time difference to increase monotonically as the size of the first data flow increases, whether any positive statistical correlation is sufficient, or whether a particular mathematical relationship is required. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4 and 13 already recite determining a start time based on a quantity of packets in the first data flow in the first queue. Claims 5 and 14 merely recite the same limitation without introducing any additional limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN-112737979-A, hereinafter Liu, in view of Thaler, US Patent Publication Number 2014/0341032, hereinafter Thaler.
Referring to claims 1, Liu discloses a method, wherein the method ([0001], a time sensitive network best effort flow scheduling method) comprises:
obtaining a first data flow having a first priority and a second data flow having a second priority, wherein the first priority is higher than the second priority ([0009], time sensitive network data is obtained for scheduling; [0003] TAS considers two main stream types, namely high priority scheduling stream (Scheduled Traffic, ST) and low priority best effort stream (Best Effort Traffic, BE), ST buffer in ST queue, BE buffer in BE queue. the TAS realizes the frame priority isolation through the traffic class), wherein the first data flow is to be transmitted via a first queue, and wherein the second data flow is to be transmitted via a second queue ([0003], [0009], figure 2, TAS scheduling high-priority Scheduled Traffic and low-priority Best Effort traffic through ST queue and BE queue);
obtaining a transmission feature of the first data flow ([0003][0009][0044-0050], figure 2, time-aware shaper divides Ethernet communication into fixed length time periods for different priority traffic, and the transmission feature is obtained in order for the traffic schedules to be arranged) ; and
scheduling the second queue based on the transmission feature ([0012], figure 2, scheduling the flow for the best effort).
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission feature is related to a time at which a packet in the first data flow is to arrive at the first queue.
Thaler discloses obtaining a transmission feature related to a time at which a high priority packet to arrive/be communicated (figure 3, step 302-306, figure 4, claims 18-19, schedule time is obtained and determined based on received priority and time data).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the scheduled high-priority packet timing of Thaler into the ST/BE scheduling system of Liu, because both reference concern preventing lower-priority traffic from interfering with scheduled high-priority/time-sensitive traffic. Thaler expressly teaches using the anticipated reception/transmission time of the high-priority packet to determine when lower-priority traffic should cease transmission.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to reduce the latency and interference experienced by the high priority flow while allowing lower-priority traffic to use otherwise available transmission time, thereby improving deterministic transmission of time-sensitive traffic and bandwidth utilization.
Referring to claim 2, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the transmission feature is a transmission period of the first data flow ([0003] figure 2, repeating CT period), and wherein scheduling the second queue comprises: determining a first time period based on the transmission period, wherein the first time period is shorter than the transmission period (Liu, [0044-0050], figure 2, within each repeating CT period , time slice 2 is allocated for BE transmission, and where the BE time slot is only a portion (shorter) of the entire repeating bandwidth period CT), and wherein the first time period is between times at which adjacent packets in the first data flow arrive at the first queue (Thaler, abstract, lower-priority transmission is permitted outside of the guard band and inhibited/preempted prior to scheduled high-priority communication); and scheduling the second queue to transmit the second data flow in the first time period (Liu [0012], claim 1, BE flow is transmitted during BE time slice 2/D within each CT period). The limitations are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Referring to claim 4, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on a quantity of packets in the first data flow in the first queue, a start time at which the second data flow is transmitted using the second queue, and wherein scheduling the second queue comprises scheduling the second queue based on the transmission feature and the start time (Liu in abstract, [0003][0012] discloses scheduling ST and BE based on the received network data, and both Liu Thaler further suggests the lower-priority traffic preventing lower-priority traffic from interfering with scheduled high-priority/time-sensitive traffic (see rejection to claim 1) so the quantity of packets in the first high-priority data flow in the first queue would dominate the start time of the second low-priority data flow).
Referring to claim 5, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising determining the start time based on the quantity of packets (see rejection to claim 4).
Referring to claim 7, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 4, wherein scheduling the second queue based on the transmission feature and the start time comprises; scheduling, when the second queue is in a sending period, the second queue to transmit the second data flow (Liu, abstract, figures 2 and 3, scheduling data flows into port queues for forwarding); and determining the sending period based on the start time and the transmission feature (Thaler, figure 3, steps 302-310, figure 4, Thaler identifies a scheduled communication for high-priority data and determines a guard-band initiation time before the scheduled communication for high-priority data). The limitations are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Referring to claim 8, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first data flow is a delay-sensitive service ([0003], high-priority ST as time-aware is viewed as delay-sensitive service), and wherein the second data flow is a bandwidth-sensitive service ([0003-0004], low-priority BE stream is sending in the corresponding bandwidth is view as a bandwidth-sensitive service).
Referring to claim 9, Liu and Thaler disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first queue and the second queue are located on a same computer device, or wherein the first queue and the second queue are located on different computer devices (Liu, figures 1-3, the first queue and the second queue are located on a same computer device).
Referring to claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 17-20, the claims encompass the same scope of the invention as that of the claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9. Therefore, claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 17-20 are rejected on the same ground as the claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objection made. Applicant must show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Sanjay, US 7,562,364, discloses adaptive queue scheduling according to the packet priority (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANGCHE A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3992. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am to 6:30pm.
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 on 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.
Liang-che Alex Wang
September 29, 2026
/LIANG CHE A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
