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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 01/27/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Per 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 01/27/2026 have been fully considered. However, the claims are rejected under new grounds of rejection with a new reference (Vigneswaran) applied.
Per 101 rejection, applicant previously stated “Without conceding to these rejections, Applicants request that the response to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 be held in abeyance until the time that no other rejections remaining the Office Action”. Therefore, the previously issued 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala et al. (US patent 6320865) hereafter Agrawala, in view of Vasudevan et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0223134) hereinafter Vasudevan, and in view of Lee at al. (US PGPUB 2022/0070058) hereinafter Lee.
Per claim 1, Agrawala teaches determining, by a copy engine, based on a data transfer schedule for a plurality of nodes (Col 2 line 7-10, “In the device times are determined in the controller means by: (i) maintaining a schedule indicating an order in which the chunks are to be transferred; (ii) accepting transfer requests from the plurality of nodes”), the prior art and the claim both involve maintaining a schedule that dictates the order in which data (chunks) are to be transferred among nodes; the controller is a copy engine); a time to transfer data from a first node to a second node (Col 2 line 21-22, ” determining times in which the chunks are to be transferred among the plurality of nodes”), both the claim and prior art describe the process of determining specific times for transferring data (chunks) between nodes; and transferring, by the copy engine, at the determined time, data from the first node to the second node (Col 2 line 23-27; “switching each of the chunks from a portion of the incoming buffer means corresponding to one of the nodes to a portion of the outgoing buffer means corresponding to another one of the nodes at times determined by the determining step”), the claim and the prior art involve the transfer (switching) of data (chunks) between nodes at the predetermined times).
Agrawala does not explicitly teach wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data, and wherein the first validation data and the second validation data are configured to be used by the second node respectively to verify that the data is free from corruption and to indicate that the appropriate data transmission was received at the appropriate time. However, Vasudevan suggests wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data, and wherein the first validation data and the second validation data are configured to be used by the second node respectively to verify that the data is free from corruption and to indicate that the appropriate data transmission was received at the appropriate time (paragraph [0030]; transferring a data packet from a first node to a second node, the data packet comprises a timestamp (first validation data) and a sequence number (second validation number); the second node verifies to ensure the sequence number is within a range of numbers and the timestamp is within an expected time range (appropriate data transmission was received at an appropriate time); a person skilled in the art would recognize that the purpose of verification and ensuring based on the sequence number and timestamp is to verify the data received is free from corruption; this is evidenced in Vigneswaran (US PGPUB 2022/0200971; claims 1, 7-8; paragraphs [0038][0069]; validating a data packet using timing information (timestamp and sequence number) of the data packet, if the data packet is invalid (i.e. corrupted), it may be from a malicious third party, the invalid data packet is discarded). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine Agrawala and Vasudevan to include a first validation data and a second validation data (timestamp and sequence number) in a data packet, this would ensure the transferred data is correct, secure and error free (and an invalid data packet is discarded for security).
While Vasudevan discloses transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data, Vasudevan does not explicitly disclose transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data. Lee suggests the above (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine Agrawala, Vasudevan and Lee to include a first validation data and a second validation data as the last transferred portion during a data transfer, this is a designer’s choice (the validation data could be placed in the beginning, or the end of the transmission).
Per claim 2, Agrawala further suggest wherein determining the time is performed by the copy engine configured to manage data transfers between the plurality of nodes (col 8 line 63-65, "controller means for determining an order and time in which the chunks are to be transferred among the plurality of nodes"),the prior art and the claim describe a mechanism (copy engine in the claim and a controller means in the prior art) responsible for determining the timing and order of data transfer between nodes), and wherein transferring the data comprises causing, by the copy engine, the first node to perform the data transfer to the second node (Col 6 line 10-18, “The controller then examines the requested temporal profile and the current calendar for the outgoing link. If the request can be accommodated, the controller proceeds to modify the calendar for the link by making temporary entries in the calendar for this connection, and to adjust the temporal profile of the current request to conform to the calendar for the link. In this manner, the request continues until it reaches the receiving TR. A confirmation is sent by the receiving TR along the same path to indicate the acceptance of the connection.”), the prior art describes a process where controller (same as copy engine) manages the transfer of data by ensuring that the necessary scheduling adjustments are made to enable the first node to send data to the second node as per the determined timing).
Per claim 3, Lee further suggests “wherein the data comprises first validation data indicating a validity of a data payload and second validation data indicating validity of a transfer of the data” (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Per claim 5, Lee further suggests “validating the data payload based on the first validation data; and validating the transfer of the data based on the second validation data” (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Re claim 8, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 15, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, is an autonomous claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 20, it is a product claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 12, is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 17, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 19, is an autonomous vehicle claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Per claim 18, Lee further discloses wherein transferring the data comprises transferring a first validation data and a second validation data as a last transferred portion of the transfer of the data (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0023][0024]; transferring data between two devices, the format for data transfer comprises a signature field and a checksum field (first and second validation data) as the last transferred portion, both the signature field and the checksum field are utilized for data validation purpose, indicating validity of the data transfer).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala, in view of Vasudevan, in view of Lee, and further in view of Sillifant Pub No. US 11,630,598 B1 (hereafter Sillifant).
Per claim 6, Agrawala fails to disclose generating the data transfer schedule based on one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation frequencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes. However, in analogous art with regards to claim 6 Sillifant teaches generating the data transfer schedule based on one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation frequencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes (Col 65 line 45, “when scheduling (904) replication operations between the storage systems, replication operations between the storage systems may also be scheduled (904) based on performance metrics.”). (Col64 line 52: “scheduling (904), based on the amount of data to be transferred from one or more source storage systems in order to fully replicate the dataset to each of the target storage systems.”). Prior art describes a method for scheduling replication operation which is parallel to data transfer scheduling and considers performance metrics or the amount of data to be transferred. These performance metrics include factors such as computation times or computation dependencies. Additionally, the scheduling based on the amount of data to be transferred aligns with the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the generating the data transfer schedule based on one or more estimated computation times for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation dependencies for the plurality of nodes, one or more computation frequencies for the plurality of nodes, or an amount of load on transfer media between the plurality of nodes as seen in Sillifant invention into Agrawala’s invention because it would lead to a more efficient and effective data transfer via scheduling process.
Re claim 13, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawala, in view of Vasudevan, in view of Lee, and further in view of Hansel Pub No. US 10328947 B1 (hereafter Hansel).
Per claim 7, Agrawala fails to disclose that the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle. However, in analogous art with regards to claim 7 Hansel teaches the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle (Col 1 line 8-11, “The autonomous vehicle may include a system having a variety of modules or sub-systems for enabling the vehicle to determine its surroundings and safely navigate to target destinations”)(See abstract “ a computing system receives sensor data from one or more sensors of a vehicle. The computing system determines a metric associated with the vehicle based on the received sensor data. The computing system determines, based on the metric, a length of a transmission cycle of a communication network of the vehicle. The transmission cycle comprises one or more scheduled time periods dedicated for transmitting data from respective first nodes in the communication network”) prior art teaches an autonomous vehicle’s system that transmits data between plurality of nodes in the vehicle’s network based on a metric which includes a scheduled time. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the plurality of nodes are included in a real-time system of an autonomous vehicle, and wherein determining the time and transferring the data are performed by the autonomous vehicle as seen in Hansel’s invention into Agrawala’s invention because it would improve the efficiency of the vehicle’s network in determining data transfer times and scheduling.
Per claim 14, it is a machine claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193