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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group 1: Claims 21-33.
Group 2: 34-40.
Group 1 recites receiving a first PDU packet of the PDU set according to a first packet handling state; receiving, subsequent to reception of the first PDU packet, a second PDU packet of the PDU set according to a second packet handling state, wherein the second PDU packet is interdependent with the first PDU packet within the PDU set; adjusting the second handling state of the second PDU packet to match the first handling state of the first PDU packet; and transmitting both of the first and second PDU packets to a destination receiver of the data network according to the first handling state.
Whereas Group 2 recites a protocol unit in operable communication with first and second data networks of the communication system, the protocol unit configured to receive (i) a first protocol data unit (PDU) from a first data network of the communication system having a first packet handling policy, and (ii) a second PDU packet from a second data network of the communication system having a second packet handling policy, wherein the second PDU packet is interdependent with the first PDU packet within a PDU set; and a scheduling unit configured to (i) mark the first and second PDU packets according to the first and second packet handling policies, respectively, (ii) schedule protocol resources for the PDU set based on the first and second PDU packet markings, and (iii) dynamically controlling, upon a congestion occurrence for the second PDU packet, scheduling of the second PDU packet to correspond with scheduling of the first PDU packet.
Group 1 recites wherein the first PDU packet is received from a first network of the data network, and wherein the second PDU packet is received from a second network of the data network, wherein the first PDU packet is received from a first sub-network of the data network, and wherein the second PDU packet is received from a second sub-network of the data network, wherein the first sub-network includes a first packet protocol for the first packet handling state, wherein the second sub-network includes a second packet protocol for the second packet handling state, and wherein the second packet protocol is different than the first packet protocol, wherein the first and second packet handling states are different respective queuing priorities, wherein the first packet handling state includes a high priority queue, and wherein the second packet handling state includes a lower priority queue, wherein the first PDU packet includes video data, and wherein the second PDU packet includes audio data, wherein the first PDU packet includes a first internet protocol (IP) header having a first value, and wherein adjusting the second handling state includes changing a second IP header of the second PDU packet to a second value equal to the first value, which are not recited in group 2.
Group 2 recites The access node of claim 34, including at least one of a base station, a gateway, a router, an optical line terminal (OLT), an optical network terminal (ONT), a modem termination system (MTS), a modem, a Wi-Fi access point, an N3IWF, a TNGF, a W-AGF, an AGF, and a user plane function (UPF), wherein the first and second packet handling policies include at least one of dual queue (DualQ) dual connectivity, and carrier aggregation, wherein the scheduling unit includes a first scheduling queue for the first PDU packet, a second scheduling queue for the second PDU packet, a first congestion marking unit for the first scheduling queue, and a second congestion marking unit for the second scheduling queue, wherein the scheduling unit further includes a conditional priority scheduler configured to, upon a congestion occurrence, dynamically adapt a priority value of the second PDU packet such that (i) the second PDU packet has the same handling state as the first PDU packet, (ii) send the second PDU packet to the first scheduling queue, and/or (iii) adapt quality of service (QoS) requirements of the second packet handling policy to conform with QoS requirements of first packet handling policy which are not recited in group 1.
The groups (combination, sub-combination) are independent or distinct because the claims are directed to different classification and recite some mutually exclusive characteristics of such groups. In addition, these groups are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single grouping of patentably indistinct groups, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct groups as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The groups require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely to be applicable to another group; and/or the groups are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a group to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the grouping of patentably indistinct groups, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected grouping of patentably indistinct groups.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the groupings of patentably indistinct groups from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the groups unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional groups which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim 21-40 are pending on this application, out of which claims 34-40 are withdrawn based on the call with the attorney without traverse. Examiner will examine claims 21-33 in this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Application 19268732 and US Patent 12363039
Claim 21 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the Claim 21 in the instant application 19268732 “the first router being configured to: determine that a route to a resource is to be cloaked; advertise the withdrawal of the route; retain the route in storage; determine whether a sufficiency criterion is met”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12363039 “receiving a first PDU packet of the PDU set, wherein the first PDU packet includes a first congestion flag” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claim 21 in the instant application 19268732 “ receiving, subsequent to reception of the first PDU packet, a second PDU packet of the PDU set according to a second packet handling state, wherein the second PDU packet is interdependent with the first PDU packet within the PDU set”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12363039 “receiving, subsequent to reception of the first PDU packet, a second PDU packet of the PDU set, wherein the second PDU packet includes a second congestion flag different from the first congestion flag” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claim 21 in the instant application 19268732 “adjusting the second handling state of the second PDU packet to match the first handling state of the first PDU packet”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12363039 “determining, after receiving the first and second PDU packets, a congestion status of the data network for the PDU set; controlling, based on the determined congestion status, a handling state of the second PDU packet to match a handling state of the first PDU packet” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claim 21 in the instant application 19268732 “transmitting both of the first and second PDU packets to a destination receiver of the data network according to the first handling state”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12363039 “transmitting the first PDU packet and the controlled second PDU packet to a destination receiver of the data network” have similar subject matters.
Claim 22 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 22 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein receiving the first and second PDU packets is performed by at least one of an access node, a base station, a gateway function, and a user plane function (UPF)”, and the limitations in claim 2 in the US Patent 12363039 “wherein the steps of receiving the first and second PDU packets are performed by at least one of an access node, a base station, a gateway function, and a user plane function (UPF)” have similar subject matters.
Claim 23 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 23 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first PDU packet is received from a first network of the data network, and wherein the second PDU packet is received from a second network of the data network”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it
would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“Rudolf”, US 20230106194 A1) in order to have different PDU packets from different networks ([0102] 5GS also supports that UEs establish multiple PDU sessions to the same or different data network(s) over a single or multiple access networks including 3GPP and non-3GPP access) because it would help mobile communications with massive antenna technologies, from legacy cellular frequency bands up to high frequencies, to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications with different requirements, new multiple access schemes to support massive connections ([0003])
Claim 24 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 24 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first PDU packet is received from a first sub-network of the data network, and wherein the second PDU packet is received from a second sub-network of the data network”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“Rudolf”, US 20230106194 A1) in order to have different PDU packets from different networks or different subnetworks ([0102] 5GS also supports that UEs establish multiple PDU sessions to the same or different data network(s) over a single or multiple access networks including 3GPP and non-3GPP access) because it would help mobile communications with massive antenna technologies, from legacy cellular frequency bands up to high frequencies, to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications with different requirements, new multiple access schemes to support massive connections ([0003])
Claim 25 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 25 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first sub-network includes a first packet protocol for the first packet handling state, wherein the second sub-network includes a second packet protocol for the second packet handling state, and wherein the second packet protocol is different than the first packet protocol”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“Rudolf”, US 20230106194 A1) in order to have different PDU packets from different networks or different subnetworks ([0102] 5GS also supports that UEs establish multiple PDU sessions to the same or different data network(s) over a single or multiple access networks including 3GPP and non-3GPP access) because it would help mobile communications with massive antenna technologies, from legacy cellular frequency bands up to high frequencies, to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity, new waveform (e.g., a new radio access technology (RAT)) to flexibly accommodate various services/applications with different requirements, new multiple access schemes to support massive connections ([0003])
Claim 26 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 26 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first and second packet handling states are different respective queuing priorities”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“Liu”, US 20200336953 A1) in order to have different priority queues for PDU packets and sessions ([0099] PDU sessions, low priority, higher priority, 3GGP, non 3GGP) because it would help improve ability for a UE to obtain service such as UE is barred in a congested cellular network with good signal strength, the UE can still obtain service (e.g., voice over IMS, MMS) over non-3GPP access/WiFi through ePDG/N3IWF ([0100])
Claim 27 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 27 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first packet handling state includes a high priority queue, and wherein the second packet handling state includes a lower priority queue”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“Liu”, US 20200336953 A1) in order to have different priority queues for PDU packets and sessions ([0099] PDU sessions, low priority, higher priority, 3GGP, non 3GGP) because it would help improve ability for a UE to obtain service such as UE is barred in a congested cellular network with good signal strength, the UE can still obtain service (e.g., voice over IMS, MMS) over non-3GPP access/WiFi through ePDG/N3IWF ([0100])
Claim 28 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 28 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first and second packet handling states include different respective quality of service requirements”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“HADDAD”, US 20260005973 A1) in order to have different packets attached to different QoS queues ([0034] The QoS request may be transmitted after a protocol data unit (PDU) session for the application has been established or prior to the establishment of the PDU session. In some embodiments, a QoS request is transmitted to an access and mobility management function (AMF) 134, which then forwards the QoS request to a session management function (SMF) 132, which subsequently forwards the QoS request to UPF 130)([0064] PDU session is established, or one or more data flows within the application for which the QoS parameters are to be applied) because it would optimize one or more data flows based on a quality-of-service request for an end user; enabling a queue dedicated to the one or more data flows sourced for the end user in the network node based on the first message; and upon a determination of congestion in the network, marking packets in the one or more data flows stored in the first queue as candidates to drop based on a queue size of the first queue, wherein the marking is to set explicit congestion notification bits of the packets ([0005])
Claim 29 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 29 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first sub-network includes a scalable sender, and wherein the second sub-network includes a classic sender”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“HADDAD”, US 20260005973 A1) in order to have classic sender and scalable sender in the network ([0046, 0048] it receives packets from sending network nodes such as a scalable node 212 and a classic node 214. A network node supporting L4S is referred to as a scalable node (also referred to as scalable sender when it transmits packets to the network node to enable dedicated queues) as L4S provides better congestion control thus more scalable comparing to nodes supporting only classic congestion control (referred to as classic nodes or classic sender) because it would support L4S protocol when transmitting packets in the network and provides better congestion control ([0046])
Claim 30 is non-provisionally (obviousness) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 30 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first PDU packet includes video data, and wherein the second PDU packet includes audio data”, which is not stated explicitly in the US Patent 12363039, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the US Patent 12363039 in view of (“HADDAD”, US 20260005973 A1) in order to have classic sender and scalable sender ([0031] video streaming)([0164] voice, video and data) because it would the networks with different types of senders support multiple and different services with different QoS ([0031]).
Claim 31 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 31 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein adjusting the second handling state includes selecting, from a plurality of queues available to the first and second PDU packets, a first queue for the PDU set including both of the first and second PDU packets”, and the limitations in claim 4 in the US Patent 12363039 “wherein the step of controlling comprises a substep of selecting, from a plurality of queues available to the first and second PDU packets, a first queue for the PDU set including both of the first and second PDU packets” have similar subject matters.
Claim 32 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 6 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 32 in the instant application 19268732 “wherein the first PDU packet includes a first internet protocol (IP) header having a first value, and wherein adjusting the second handling state includes changing a second IP header of the second PDU packet to a second value equal to the first value”, and the limitations in claims 5 and 6 in the US Patent 12363039 “wherein the step of controlling comprises a substep of changing a first internet protocol (IP) header of the first PDU packet to a first value, a substep of changing a second IP header of the second PDU packet to a second value equal to the first value” have similar subject matters.
Claim 33 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of US Patent 12363039.
Limitations of the claim 31 in the instant application 19268732 “managing respective IP header bits of all PDU packets of the PDU set, subsequent to the first and second PDU packets, to match the first value”, and the limitations in claim 14 in the US Patent 12363039 “a substep of managing the respective IP header bits of all subsequent PDU packets of the PDU set to match the respective IP header bit of the first PDU packet” have similar subject matters.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-33 are allowable if overcoming the double patent rejection set forth in this office action.
The reason for the allowable subject matter in claim 21.
The closest prior arts of record (“BEAK”, US 20230309100 A1) and (“KWAN”, US 20060092836 A1) fail to fairly teach or suggest receive first and second protocol data unit packets in a network, each PDU packet has state attached to the packet, comparing the different states between the first and second PDU packe, controlling based on the identification the handling of the first and second PDU packets wherein the handling is to match handling both first and second PDU packets with the same method, and sends the first and second PDU packets to the receiver over the network after handling them in order to keep the same quality of experience across all packets
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
