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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 42-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claus et al., (Pub. No.: US 2008/0115146 A1), in view of Maniatis et al., (International Publication Number: WO 2013/143586 A1).
Claims 1 - 41. (Cancelled).
Regarding Claim 42, (Previously Presented) Claus discloses a method in a first network node for verifying availability of at least part of a communication link, the method comprising: (Claus, Abstract, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data, paragraph [0027] discloses wireless device which is first node, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link, Fig. 1, Master (GUI host) 101 is also interpreted as a first node: For entire disclosure Figs. 1, 4, 5, and paragraphs [0008]-[0012], paragraph [0027], and paragraphs [0046]-[0048] are given emphasis, see “connection”, “safety”, and “watchdog” in the Abstract)
receiving (Claus, paragraphs [0007], [0026], and [0035] disclose receiving modules, paragraphs [0025], and [0027] disclose receiving data, paragraph [0049] discloses receiving), from a first functional safety application, a plurality of first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) for verifying availability (Claus, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data) of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and a second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) according to one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein each first message includes one or more respective data (Claus, Abstract, data); and
exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data), with a second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) over at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) for verifying availability of the at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages are successively exchanged with the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) in accordance with at least one of the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), and the second messages and the acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) do not include the one or more data (Claus, Abstract, data). (Claus, The present design/disclosure enables a synchronous communications watchdog mechanism, also known as a safety critical communications watchdog or a medical event safety critical communications watchdog. The master module sends an explicit request message to the slave module to start a communication data object. This data object defines two bytes that affect the performance of the communication watchdog. A cyclic interval (CycInt) byte defines the interval, in milliseconds, at which both the master and slave test the communications watchdog. An expected packet (EPR) byte defines the initial message timer value. Both the master and slave modules contain a copy of the EPR byte. The present design decrement the EPR byte value for each elapsed interval as defined by the CycInt byte. Each time a data packet is received from the other module, the EPR byte value is reset to the initial value. When a sufficient number of elapsed intervals are experienced by either module to cause the EPR byte value to be decrement to zero, the module considers the communications watchdog to have failed and take appropriate safety critical actions at this point. Paragraph [0046]; Figs. 4 and 5; the watch dog functionality be implemented in the form of virtual device drivers known in the art, one residing on the master and one residing on the slave to enable the monitoring of the communications in both directions, in paragraph [0048]; wireless devices in paragraph [0027])
Claus does not explicitly disclose the minor difference as follow:
resource availability management of computer networks
However, Claus in view of Maniatis disclose following:
resource availability management of computer networks (Maniatis, Abstract, the UE communicates the average heartbeat time via RRC signaling to the target base station, on page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Claus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of Maniatis so that resource availability management of computer networks be included in a method in a first network node for verifying availability of at least part of a communication link. The motivation to combine the teachings of Maniatis would enable radio resource control connection, in particular to radio resource control connections between a base station and a user equipment (i.e. master and slave respectively running an always-on application. (Maniatis, Abstract, Emphasis: page 1-6, page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
Regarding Claim 43, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 42, further comprising, before receiving the plurality of first messages: (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages)
receiving (Claus, paragraphs [0007], [0026], and [0035] disclose receiving modules, paragraphs [0025], and [0027] disclose receiving data, paragraph [0049] discloses receiving), from the first functional safety application or the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), a request to establish the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), wherein the request indicates the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link); and
establishing (Claus, Abstract, paragraph [0011], and Claim 1 disclose establishing communications) the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively).
Regarding Claim 44, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 42, wherein the one or more parameters include a first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) of successively receiving each of the first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) from the first functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) and/or a time period between receiving each first message from the functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), and wherein receiving the first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) from the first functional safety application comprises successively receiving each of the plurality of messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) at substantially the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period) between each first message (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 45, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 44, wherein exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data) a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement / acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) comprises successively receiving the plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) from the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) substantially at the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and sending a respective one of the acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement / acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) to the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) in response to each of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 46, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 44, wherein exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data) a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) comprises successively sending the plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) to the second network node substantially at the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and receiving a respective one of the acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages from the second network node in response to each of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 47, (Currently Amended) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 46, wherein the one or more parameters include a further time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and the method comprises, in response to an acknowledgement (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of one of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) not being received within the further time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period) after sending one of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages), indicating to the application that the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) is inoperative.
Regarding Claim 48, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 42, wherein the one or more parameters include a communication protocol associated with the first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 49, (Currently Amended) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 42, comprising determining that the plurality of first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) are for verifying availability of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively).
Regarding Claim 50, (Currently Amended) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 49, comprising determining that each of the first messages is for verifying availability of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) by comparing at least one field in each first message with at least one corresponding field in at least one earlier message received from the first functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), wherein the at least one field in each first message contains the respective one or more data for the first message (Claus, Abstract, data).
Regarding Claim 51, (Currently Amended) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 49, comprising determining that at least one further message from the first functional safety application is not for verifying availability of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), and forwarding the at least one further message to the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively).
Regarding Claim 52, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 42, wherein the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) is associated with a first message time period, and wherein the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) is based on the first message time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period).
Regarding Claim 53, (Previously Presented) Claus discloses a method in a first network node for verifying availability (Claus, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data) of at least part of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), the method comprising:
generating and sending (Claus, Abstract, sending data, various other passages disclose send/sending data, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0041]-[0043] disclose send a request/message/data. Fig. 5, paragraphs [0044]-[0045] also disclose send), to a first functional safety application, a plurality of first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) for verifying availability (Claus, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data) of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and a second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) according to one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), each first message includes one or more respective data (Claus, Abstract, data); and
exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data), with a second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) over at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), a plurality of second messages and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) for verifying availability of the at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein the second messages and acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement / acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) are successively exchanged with the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) in accordance with at least one of the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), and the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and the acknowledgements of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) do not include the one or more data (Claus, Abstract, data).
(Claus, The present design/disclosure enables a synchronous communications watchdog mechanism, also known as a safety critical communications watchdog or a medical event safety critical communications watchdog. The master module sends an explicit request message to the slave module to start a communication data object. This data object defines two bytes that affect the performance of the communication watchdog. A cyclic interval (CycInt) byte defines the interval, in milliseconds, at which both the master and slave test the communications watchdog. An expected packet (EPR) byte defines the initial message timer value. Both the master and slave modules contain a copy of the EPR byte. The present design decrement the EPR byte value for each elapsed interval as defined by the CycInt byte. Each time a data packet is received from the other module, the EPR byte value is reset to the initial value. When a sufficient number of elapsed intervals are experienced by either module to cause the EPR byte value to be decrement to zero, the module considers the communications watchdog to have failed and take appropriate safety critical actions at this point. Paragraph [0046]; Figs. 4 and 5; the watch dog functionality be implemented in the form of virtual device drivers known in the art, one residing on the master and one residing on the slave to enable the monitoring of the communications in both directions, in paragraph [0048]; wireless devices in paragraph [0027])
Claus does not explicitly disclose the minor difference as follow:
resource availability management of computer networks
However, Claus in view of Maniatis disclose following:
resource availability management of computer networks (Maniatis, Abstract, the UE communicates the average heartbeat time via RRC signaling to the target base station, on page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Claus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of Maniatis so that resource availability management of computer networks be included in a method in a first network node for verifying availability of at least part of a communication link. The motivation to combine the teachings of Maniatis would enable radio resource control connection, in particular to radio resource control connections between a base station and a user equipment (i.e. master and slave respectively running an always-on application. (Maniatis, Abstract, Emphasis: page 1-6, page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
Regarding Claim 54, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 53, further comprising, before receiving the plurality of first messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages):
receiving (Claus, paragraphs [0007], [0026], and [0035] disclose receiving modules, paragraphs [0025], and [0027] disclose receiving data, paragraph [0049] discloses receiving), from the first functional safety application or the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), a request to establish (Claus, Abstract, paragraph [0011], and Claim 1 disclose establishing communications) the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), wherein the request indicates the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link); and
establishing (Claus, Abstract, paragraph [0011], and Claim 1 disclose establishing communications) the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and the second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively).
Regarding Claim 55, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 53, wherein the one or more parameters include a first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) of successively sending each of the first messages from the first functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) and/or a time period between sending each first message from the functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively), wherein sending the first messages to the first functional safety application comprises successively sending each of the plurality of messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) at substantially the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period) between each first message.
Regarding Claim 56, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 55, wherein exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data) a plurality of second messages and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) comprises successively receiving the plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) from the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) substantially at the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and sending a respective one of the acknowledgements of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) to the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) in response to each of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 57, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 55, wherein exchanging (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data) a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement / acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) comprises successively sending the plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) to the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) substantially at the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) or in accordance with the time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and receiving a respective one of the acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) from the second network node in response to each of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages).
Regarding Claim 58, (Currently Amended) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 57, wherein the one or more parameters include a further time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and the method comprises, in response to an acknowledgement (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of one of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) not being received within the further time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period) after sending one of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages), indicating to the application that the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) is inoperative.
Regarding Claim 59, (Previously Presented) The combination of Claus and Maniatis disclose the method of claim 53, wherein the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) is associated with a first message time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period), and wherein the first frequency (Claus, paragraph [0038] discloses frequency) is based on the first message time period (Claus, Claims 8, and 17 disclose period of time which is time period).
Regarding Claim 60, (Previously Presented) Claus discloses apparatus in a first network node for verifying availability (Claus, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data) of at least part of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), the apparatus comprising a processor (Claus, paragraph [0007] processing resources (i.e. CPU)) and a memory (Claus, paragraph [0007] memory), the memory (Claus, paragraph [0007] memory) containing instructions executable by the processor such that the apparatus is operable to: (Claus, paragraph [0007] processing resources (i.e. CPU))
receive (Claus, paragraphs [0007], [0026], and [0035] disclose receiving modules, paragraphs [0025], and [0027] disclose receiving data, paragraph [0049] discloses receiving), from a first functional safety application, a plurality of first messages for verifying availability of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and a second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) according to one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein each first message includes one or more respective data (Claus, Abstract, data); and
exchange (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data), with a second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) over at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement / acknowledgement message) of the second messages for verifying availability of the at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) are successively exchanged with the second network node in accordance with at least one of the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), and the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and the acknowledgements of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) do not include the one or more data (Claus, Abstract, data). (Claus, The present design/disclosure enables a synchronous communications watchdog mechanism, also known as a safety critical communications watchdog or a medical event safety critical communications watchdog. The master module sends an explicit request message to the slave module to start a communication data object. This data object defines two bytes that affect the performance of the communication watchdog. A cyclic interval (CycInt) byte defines the interval, in milliseconds, at which both the master and slave test the communications watchdog. An expected packet (EPR) byte defines the initial message timer value. Both the master and slave modules contain a copy of the EPR byte. The present design decrement the EPR byte value for each elapsed interval as defined by the CycInt byte. Each time a data packet is received from the other module, the EPR byte value is reset to the initial value. When a sufficient number of elapsed intervals are experienced by either module to cause the EPR byte value to be decrement to zero, the module considers the communications watchdog to have failed and take appropriate safety critical actions at this point. Paragraph [0046]; Figs. 4 and 5; the watch dog functionality be implemented in the form of virtual device drivers known in the art, one residing on the master and one residing on the slave to enable the monitoring of the communications in both directions, in paragraph [0048]; wireless devices in paragraph [0027])
Claus does not explicitly disclose the minor difference as follow:
resource availability management of computer networks
However, Claus in view of Maniatis disclose following:
resource availability management of computer networks (Maniatis, Abstract, the UE communicates the average heartbeat time via RRC signaling to the target base station, on page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Claus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of Maniatis so that resource availability management of computer networks be included in a apparatus in a first network node for verifying availability of at least part of a communication link. The motivation to combine the teachings of Maniatis would enable radio resource control connection, in particular to radio resource control connections between a base station and a user equipment (i.e. master and slave respectively running an always-on application. (Maniatis, Abstract, Emphasis: page 1-6, page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
Regarding Claim 61, (Previously Presented) Claus discloses apparatus in a first network node for verifying availability (Claus, paragraph [0012] watchdog function to verify communications integrity, paragraph [0049] verify the data) of at least part of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), the apparatus comprising a processor (Claus, paragraph [0007] processing resources (i.e. CPU)) and a memory (Claus, paragraph [0007] memory), the memory (Claus, paragraph [0007] memory) containing instructions executable by the processor such that the apparatus is operable to: (Claus, paragraph [0007] processing resources (i.e. CPU))
generate and send (Claus, Abstract, sending data, various other passages disclose send/sending data, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0041]-[0043] disclose send a request/message/data. Fig. 5, paragraphs [0044]-[0045] also disclose send), to a first functional safety application, a plurality of first messages for verifying availability of a communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) between the first functional safety application and a second functional safety application (Claus, paragraph [0025] discloses applications which are first application and second application respectively) according to one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link) each first message includes one or more respective data (Claus, Abstract, data); and
exchange (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0031], and [0032] disclose exchanging data), with a second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) over at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), a plurality of second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and a plurality of acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) for verifying availability of the at least part of the communications link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), wherein the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and acknowledgements of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) are successively exchanged with the second network node (Claus, Fig. 1, Slave (Instrument Host) 102 is interpreted as second node) in accordance with at least one of the one or more parameters associated with the communication link (Claus, Fig. 1, paragraph [0035] discloses communication path which is a communication link), and the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) and the acknowledgements (Claus, Fig. 2C, paragraphs [0019], [0037], Fig. 4, paragraphs [0042]-[0043] acknowledgement 403, Fig. 5, paragraph [0045] disclose acknowledgement/acknowledgement message) of the second messages (Claus, paragraph [0036], Fig. 5, paragraphs [0045] response data 503 message, and paragraphs [0047], and [0049] disclose messages which are plurality of messages) do not include the one or more data (Claus, Abstract, data). (Claus, The present design/disclosure enables a synchronous communications watchdog mechanism, also known as a safety critical communications watchdog or a medical event safety critical communications watchdog. The master module sends an explicit request message to the slave module to start a communication data object. This data object defines two bytes that affect the performance of the communication watchdog. A cyclic interval (CycInt) byte defines the interval, in milliseconds, at which both the master and slave test the communications watchdog. An expected packet (EPR) byte defines the initial message timer value. Both the master and slave modules contain a copy of the EPR byte. The present design decrement the EPR byte value for each elapsed interval as defined by the CycInt byte. Each time a data packet is received from the other module, the EPR byte value is reset to the initial value. When a sufficient number of elapsed intervals are experienced by either module to cause the EPR byte value to be decrement to zero, the module considers the communications watchdog to have failed and take appropriate safety critical actions at this point. Paragraph [0046]; Figs. 4 and 5; the watch dog functionality be implemented in the form of virtual device drivers known in the art, one residing on the master and one residing on the slave to enable the monitoring of the communications in both directions, in paragraph [0048]; wireless devices in paragraph [0027])
Claus does not explicitly disclose the minor difference as follow:
resource availability management of computer networks
However, Claus in view of Maniatis disclose following:
resource availability management of computer networks (Maniatis, Abstract, the UE communicates the average heartbeat time via RRC signaling to the target base station, on page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to combine the teachings of Claus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with that of Maniatis so that resource availability management of computer networks be included in a apparatus in a first network node for verifying availability of at least part of a communication link. The motivation to combine the teachings of Maniatis would enable radio resource control connection, in particular to radio resource control connections between a base station and a user equipment (i.e. master and slave respectively running an always-on application. (Maniatis, Abstract, Emphasis: page 1-6, page 6, lines 11-18; figures 1 and 2)
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on March 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The applicant argues that the office action points to the very same “response date 503 message; as corresponding to the first messages and second messages. applicant contends that Claus’s “response data 503 messages” cannot correspond to both the “first messages” and the “second messages” of claim 42, because the claim requires that the second messages and acknowledgements do not include the “respective data” of the first messages. .
In response. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. First, the examiner points out here that, in the previous action, the examiner pointed to message 503 as one example of mapping the claimed first message and claimed second message. The examiner pointed out to ¶ 0036, ¶ 0046 and ¶ 0048 and explained that such paragraphs disclose multiple messages to be mapped to the claimed first message and claimed second message. With that being said, Claus discloses a communications protocol with watchdog functionality, wherein a master and slave exchange messages to verify link integrity (see Claus, Abstract; [0012], [0046]-[0048]; Figs. 4, 5). Claus discloses that these messages may include arbitrary data for application-level communication, and also periodic messages for monitoring link status. Claus also discloses the “first messages” of claim 42 correspond and its mapped there to application-level watchdog messages disclosed in Claus, which include respective data (e.g., device status, operational parameters) sent between safety-critical applications (Claus [0036], [0045], [0047], [0049], Figs. 4, 5). Moreover, Claus discloses the “second messages” and their acknowledgements that correspond to lower-level network supervision messages or watchdog (heartbet) test messages that are designed to verify link integrity and most of the time don’t include application level data. ( See Claus ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039). In addition, Claus further teaches that the watchdog mechanism can be implemented as virtual device drivers (see [0048]), enabling separation between application-level and network-level supervision. Also, the secondary reference Maniatis discloses (e.g., RRC signaling, periodic keep-alive, or timer-based messages) and are used to verify link availability, but do not include the application-level “respective data” (Maniatis, Abstract; Claims 1–9; Fig. 2). Therefore, the combination of Claus and Maniatis meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Applicant argues that Claus does not and cannot disclose receiving a request from a functional safety application to establish a communication link and does not and cannot discloses parameters being included in such request. as recited in Applicant's claim 43.
IN response: b) Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The claim, as current presented, is reasonable interpreted as receiving request ( message) from first functional safety application OR second application; the request or message includes any parameters (information or data) that are associated with communication. With that being said, Claus discloses initialization of communication links between modules (see Abstract; [0011], Claim 1), and the protocol supports transmission of parameters (e.g., cyclic interval, expected packet rate) for watchdog operation ([0046], [0047]). Also, Claus (Fig. 1, paragraph [0035) discloses communication path which is a communication link); And discloses at Paragraph [0025] that communication could be between applications which are first application and second application respectively. Further, the secondary reference Maniatis further discloses that network nodes (UE/base station) receive requests and parameters (e.g., heartbeat time, mobility) for establishing and managing radio resource control connections (Maniatis, Claims 3–4). Thus, the combination of Claus and Maniatis meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Claus does not disclose dependent claim 50. In particular the applicant argued that Claus does not discloses any comparing of fields in one message with a corresponding field in an earlier message, as recited in Applicant's claim 50.
In response: Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Claus’s protocol supports error detection and verification by comparing checksums and message fields ([0049], [0050]), enabling determination of whether messages verify link availability by disclosing retrieving and verifying the data sent to the instrument host. In the situation where the GUI host detects that the retrieved data is invalid (¶ 0049) and discloses at (¶ 0050) that Regarding checksums, the receiver of every packet recalculates the checksums and compares the checksums to the transmitted checksum values. If the checksums do not match. Maniatis Further discloses comparison of traffic and mobility parameters to manage supervision intervals (Claims 6–8). Thus, the combination of Claus and Maniatis meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented.
Applicant argues that Claim 51 specifies that the first network node determines that at least one further message from the first functional safety application is not for verifying availability of the communications link, and forwards that message to the second application. The Office Action's analysis simply points to the existence of a "communication path" and first and second applications in Claus, with no serious attempt to show that Claus discloses the features of claim 51.
In response: Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Claus’s supports transmission of both verification (watchdog) messages and other types of data (¶ 0046). Also, Claus discloes . The method may include five types of services associated with explicit messaging. The service to be performed may be specified within the ServiceID byte. Depending on the ServiceID, the instrument host 102 slave may respond with an explicit response ([¶ 0034], [ ¶ 0041]–[0043]). The system can determine message type based on fields (e.g., ServiceID, ClassID) and forward non-verification messages as needed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights