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 communication is in response to application filed on June 4, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 is/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.
Claim 1: The term "impose" in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "impose" 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.
Claims 8 and 15 recited similar limitation and same rejection applies.
Claim 1: The term "adjust" in line 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "adjust" 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.
Claims 8 and 15 recited similar limitation and same rejection applies.
Claim 1: The term "goal" in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "goal" 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.
Claims 8 and 15 recited similar limitation and same rejection applies.
Claim 5: The term "take" in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "take" 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.
Claims 12 and 19 recited similar limitation and same rejection applies.
The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser et al. (US 20180131613) hereinafter “Fraser”.
As to claim 1, Fraser discloses a system for implementing network congestion control (Fraser, abstract [02], discloses a system for controlling congestion in network traffic), comprising:
a memory (Fraser [75, 128-129], memory); and at least one hardware processor coupled to the memory (Fraser [75, 128-129], processor and memory) and configured to; at least:
impose a delay on traffic on a connection between a sender and a receiver (Fraser [136-140, 160-161], discloses wherein the embodiments can impose different fairness condition associated with bandwidth allocated flows, including wherein the pacing module causes the sending of acknowledgments to be delayed by the duration of time);
determine a minimum round trip time for traffic on the connection with the delay imposed (Fraser [75-80, 134-140], discloses a Round trip Time (RTT) determination module for determining the round trip time of a message, wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back, and determine minimum RTT); and
adjust the delay imposed on the traffic to an adjusted delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal and the round trip time (Fraser [79-80, 107-110, 134-140], discloses wherein the RTT determination module continually monitors or re-measure the RTT, and updates the minimum RTT, and wherein incrementally adjusting the allocation of bandwidth so as to cause the bandwidth to incrementally approach a desired allocation). However, Fraser doesn’t explicitly state a minimum propagation delay goal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bandwidth allocation algorithm described by Fraser to be capable of adjusting delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal, the motivation would be to streamline the network traffic by adjusting delays on certain traffic flows to maximize network bandwidth capacity (Fraser [111, 128, 134-140]).
As to claim 2, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is also configured to set an initial value of the delay to the propagation delay goal (Fraser [125-128, 134-140], discloses wherein the messages used for setting the initial RTT may be the same messages that make up the handshake of establishing the connection).
As to claim 3, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the delay is imposed on an acknowledgment message that is part of the traffic (Fraser [79, 84-90], discloses wherein the round trip time of a message is the length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and actual time of transmission, between delays, the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 4, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the adjusted delay is equal to the propagation delay goal minus the minimum round trip time minus the delay (Fraser [79-84], discloses wherein Round trip Time (RTT) determination module determines the round trip time of a message, including length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 5, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one hardware processor is also configured to: determine whether the adjusted delay meets a threshold (Fraser [71-76], discloses wherein reducing the sending rate of data when a threshold/limit is reached/meets via the built in congestion control mechanism); and
take an action on the connection in response to determining that the adjusted delay meets the threshold (Fraser [71-73, 78-80], discloses wherein the TCP sender reduces the sending rate by half and starts probing for the bandwidth upon determining a message is dropped, and further discloses wherein the congestion removal module takes action by reducing congestion by reducing the queuing for an individual flow).
As to claim 6, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the threshold is zero milliseconds (Fraser [107-109, 175-178], discloses wherein threshold can be set in milliseconds).
As to claim 7, Fraser discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the action is to reduce a bandwidth of the connection (Fraser [38, 57, 64-67, 77-80], discloses wherein reducing/allocating bandwidth, and regulating the bandwidth and control the flow rate of the messages).
As to claim 8, Fraser discloses a method for implementing network congestion control (Fraser, abstract [02], discloses a system for controlling congestion in network traffic), comprising:
imposing a delay on traffic on a connection between a sender and a receiver (Fraser [136-140, 160-161], discloses wherein the embodiments can impose different fairness condition associated with bandwidth allocated flows, including wherein the pacing module causes the sending of acknowledgments to be delayed by the duration of time);
determining a minimum round trip time for traffic on the connection with the delay imposed (Fraser [75-80, 134-140], discloses a Round trip Time (RTT) determination module for determining the round trip time of a message, wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back, and determine minimum RTT); and
adjusting the delay imposed on the traffic to an adjusted delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal and the round trip time (Fraser [79-80, 107-110, 134-140], discloses wherein the RTT determination module continually monitors or re-measure the RTT, and updates the minimum RTT, and wherein incrementally adjusting the allocation of bandwidth so as to cause the bandwidth to incrementally approach a desired allocation). However, Fraser doesn’t explicitly state a minimum propagation delay goal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bandwidth allocation algorithm described by Fraser to be capable of adjusting delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal, the motivation would be to streamline the network traffic by adjusting delays on certain traffic flows to maximize network bandwidth capacity (Fraser [111, 128, 134-140]).
As to claim 9, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising setting an initial value of the delay to the propagation delay goal (Fraser [125-128, 134-140], discloses wherein the messages used for setting the initial RTT may be the same messages that make up the handshake of establishing the connection).
As to claim 10, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the delay is imposed on an acknowledgment message that is part of the traffic (Fraser [79, 84-90], discloses wherein the round trip time of a message is the length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and actual time of transmission, between delays, the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 11, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the adjusted delay is equal to the propagation delay goal minus the minimum round-trip time minus the delay (Fraser [79-84], discloses wherein Round trip Time (RTT) determination module determines the round trip time of a message, including length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 12, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: determining whether the adjusted delay meets a threshold (Fraser [71-76], discloses wherein reducing the sending rate of data when a threshold/limit is reached/meets via the built in congestion control mechanism); and
taking an action on the connection in response to determining that the adjusted delay meets the threshold (Fraser [71-73, 78-80], discloses wherein the TCP sender reduces the sending rate by half and starts probing for the bandwidth upon determining a message is dropped, and further discloses wherein the congestion removal module takes action by reducing congestion by reducing the queuing for an individual flow).
As to claim 13, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the threshold is zero milliseconds (Fraser [107-109, 175-178], discloses wherein threshold can be set in milliseconds).
As to claim 14, Fraser discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the action is to reduce a bandwidth of the connection (Fraser [38, 57, 64-67, 77-80], discloses wherein reducing/allocating bandwidth, and regulating the bandwidth and control the flow rate of the messages).
As to claim 15, Fraser discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (Fraser [75, 128-129], processor and memory), cause the processor to perform a method for implementing network congestion control (Fraser, abstract [02], discloses a system for controlling congestion in network traffic), the method comprising:
imposing a delay on traffic on a connection between a sender and a receiver (Fraser [136-140, 160-161], discloses wherein the embodiments can impose different fairness condition associated with bandwidth allocated flows, including wherein the pacing module causes the sending of acknowledgments to be delayed by the duration of time);
determining a minimum round trip time for traffic on the connection with the delay imposed (Fraser [75-80, 134-140], discloses a Round trip Time (RTT) determination module for determining the round trip time of a message, wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back, and determine minimum RTT); and
adjusting the delay imposed on the traffic to an adjusted delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal and the round trip time (Fraser [79-80, 107-110, 134-140], discloses wherein the RTT determination module continually monitors or re-measure the RTT, and updates the minimum RTT, and wherein incrementally adjusting the allocation of bandwidth so as to cause the bandwidth to incrementally approach a desired allocation). However, Fraser doesn’t explicitly state a minimum propagation delay goal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bandwidth allocation algorithm described by Fraser to be capable of adjusting delay based on a minimum propagation delay goal, the motivation would be to streamline the network traffic by adjusting delays on certain traffic flows to maximize network bandwidth capacity (Fraser [111, 128, 134-140]).
As to claim 16, Fraser discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises setting an initial value of the delay to the propagation delay goal (Fraser [125-128, 134-140], discloses wherein the messages used for setting the initial RTT may be the same messages that make up the handshake of establishing the connection).
As to claim 17, Fraser discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the delay is imposed on an acknowledgment message that is part of the traffic (Fraser [79, 84-90], discloses wherein the round trip time of a message is the length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and actual time of transmission, between delays, the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 18, Fraser discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the adjusted delay is equal to the propagation delay goal minus the minimum round-trip time minus the delay (Fraser [79-84], discloses wherein Round trip Time (RTT) determination module determines the round trip time of a message, including length of time it takes for a signal to be sent and arrive at a destination plus the length of time it takes for an acknowledgment of that signal to be received, and wherein the RTT is the sum of time delays of the propagation time of a signal traveling from a first point to a second point and back).
As to claim 19, Fraser discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: determining whether the adjusted delay meets a threshold (Fraser [71-76], discloses wherein reducing the sending rate of data when a threshold/limit is reached/meets via the built in congestion control mechanism); and
taking an action on the connection in response to determining that the adjusted delay meets the threshold (Fraser [71-73, 78-80], discloses wherein the TCP sender reduces the sending rate by half and starts probing for the bandwidth upon determining a message is dropped, and further discloses wherein the congestion removal module takes action by reducing congestion by reducing the queuing for an individual flow).
As to claim 20, Fraser discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the threshold is zero milliseconds (Fraser [107-109, 175-178], discloses wherein threshold can be set in milliseconds).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights