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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claim 1, Examiner asserts that Eglin teaches "wherein the at least one cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network (110) (e.g., see endpoints illustrated in at least figure 3 and described in context with 0012-0023 and figure 5)".
Applicants respectfully submit that the claim recites that the cluster has a plurality of endpoints associated with the network, i.e., the PLMN cluster has a plurality of endpoints. At paragraphs [0012]-[0023], Eglin discloses that each mesh network includes a plurality of network clusters. Each network cluster includes a plurality of nodes. At least one of the plurality of nodes comprises a portal node. A portal node comprises a node with at least one link that crosses a boundary of the network cluster. However, Eglin fails to disclose the cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network.
However, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2173.01 states:
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."). The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260, 94 USPQ2D 1640, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 84 USPQ2d 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Buszard, the claim was directed to a flame retardant composition comprising a flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture. Buszard, 504 F.3d at 1365, 84 USPQ2d at 1749. The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s interpretation that equated a "flexible" foam with a crushed "rigid" foam was not reasonable. Id. at 1367, 84 USPQ2d at 1751. Persuasive argument was presented that persons experienced in the field of polyurethane foams know that a flexible mixture is different than a rigid foam mixture. Id. at 1366, 84 USPQ2d at 1751. See MPEP § 2111 for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the USPTO looks to the ordinary use of the claim terms taking into account definitions or other "enlightenment" contained in the written description); But c.f. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification."); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP § 2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of claim language. Consider at least figure 3 of Eglin illustrates a “cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network”
PNG
media_image1.png
550
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues Eglin fails to disclose that the plurality of requests to be transmitted to at least one cluster (i.e., PLMN cluster) is received from the one or more source node devices in communication with the controller via the network.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees- This is met based on the underlying routing protocol such as RSTP (e.g., 0033 “Additionally, any suitable type of path selection or forwarding algorithm or networking or routing protocol can be used for the network 300, such as, for example, RSTP, Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) or the like.” – see also 0059) which as at least part of the protocol would address request/response of the information flow.
Further, at page 4, regarding claim 1, Examiner asserts that Eglin teaches "determine status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster (i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5)"
Applicant argues that the claimed invention discloses that the controller determines the status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster (e.g., PLMN cluster). The controller may determine if the status of each point is active or inactive. Eglin fails to disclose that the controller determines the status of each endpoint associated with at least one cluster (e.g., PLMN cluster). The controller may determine if the status of each point is active or inactive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Eglin as cited by the Examiner would meet the equivalent thereof based on the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained above. In addition, carefully consider Layer 2 and Layer 3 message inherent in the disclosed protocols such as the protocols noted in least 0059.
Applicant argues the RSTP is not utilized by each portal node for the at least one link. Detection packets are communicated on each interface of the portal node that is not part of the network cluster to which the portal node belongs. Information packets received by the portal node via the at least one link are discarded, when the information packets do not comprise detection packets. However, Eglin fails to disclose that the plurality of requests is routed through the at least one cluster for transmitting it to each said endpoint. The plurality of requests are routed equally to the plurality of endpoints associated with the at least one cluster based on a routing technique (e.g., a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique).
The Examiner respectfully submits that Eglin as cited by the Examiner would meet the equivalent thereof based on the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained above. Paragraph 0059 teaches Although RSTP has been discussed merely to illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention, any suitable Layer 2 or Layer 3 path selection or forwarding algorithm or routing or networking protocol can be used according to exemplary embodiments, including, but not limited to, STP, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Open Shortest Path First (OPSF) protocol, Angle-Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio (Angle-SINR) Table (AST) routing, Ant-Colony Based Routing Algorithm (ARA), Backup Source Routing (BSR), Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM), Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Fisheye State Routing (FSR), Global State Routing (GSR), Location-Aided Routing (LAR), Link-Life Based Routing (LBR), Lightweight Mobile Routing (LMR) protocol, Link-State Routing (LSR), Meshed Multipath Routing Protocol (MMRP) with selective forwarding, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Routing Bridges (rBridges), Region-based Routing Protocol (REGR), Terminode routing, Terminode Remote Routing (TRR), Two-Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), or the like. For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, RSTP can be used for a Layer 2 forwarding algorithm, while OPSF can be used for a Layer 3 forwarding algorithm.
Applicant argues further, at page 4, Examiner asserts that "Yao does not specifically teach a PLMN or a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller". So, Yao fails to disclose the network elements connected via internetwork communication links that enable routing with active and standby instances. So, both Eglin and Yao fail to disclose the ingress/egress active-active routing among the plurality of clusters (e.g., PLMN clusters) in the network. When a request to route traffic is received, it is determined whether any/at least one of the endpoints is active. If all the endpoints are found to be active, then the traffic may be equally divided amongst the nodes present within the active cluster. If some of the endpoints are found to be active, while others are found to be inactive, then the traffic is equally divided amongst the active nodes present within the active cluster.
The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). it is noted that features upon which applicant relies which are not recited in the rejected claim(s) will not be given patentable weight. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues regarding claim 3. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that claim 3 essentially defines the manner in which a link state protocol works such as those noted by Eglin. The Examiner respectfully submits that Eglin as cited by the Examiner would meet the equivalent thereof based on the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained above. Paragraph 0059 teaches Although RSTP has been discussed merely to illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention, any suitable Layer 2 or Layer 3 path selection or forwarding algorithm or routing or networking protocol can be used according to exemplary embodiments, including, but not limited to, STP, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Open Shortest Path First (OPSF) protocol, Angle-Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio (Angle-SINR) Table (AST) routing, Ant-Colony Based Routing Algorithm (ARA), Backup Source Routing (BSR), Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM), Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Fisheye State Routing (FSR), Global State Routing (GSR), Location-Aided Routing (LAR), Link-Life Based Routing (LBR), Lightweight Mobile Routing (LMR) protocol, Link-State Routing (LSR), Meshed Multipath Routing Protocol (MMRP) with selective forwarding, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Routing Bridges (rBridges), Region-based Routing Protocol (REGR), Terminode routing, Terminode Remote Routing (TRR), Two-Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), or the like. For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, RSTP can be used for a Layer 2 forwarding algorithm, while OPSF can be used for a Layer 3 forwarding algorithm.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 3, Eglin fails to disclose the determination of the number of active endpoints at the predefined time.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same rationale as noted above.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 7, Eglin fails to disclose that when the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the plurality of requests to the said inactive endpoints is stopped.
Applicant argues regarding claim 8, Examiner asserts that Eglin teaches "wherein the controller (102) is further configured to receive a plurality of responses from the plurality of endpoints, the plurality of responses are responses to the plurality of requests received by the plurality of endpoints (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037) ". Eglin fails to disclose receiving a plurality of responses from the plurality of endpoints. The plurality of responses are responses to the plurality of requests received by the plurality of endpoints.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Eglin as cited by the Examiner would meet the equivalent thereof based on the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained above. Paragraph 0059 teaches Although RSTP has been discussed merely to illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention, any suitable Layer 2 or Layer 3 path selection or forwarding algorithm or routing or networking protocol can be used according to exemplary embodiments, including, but not limited to, STP, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Open Shortest Path First (OPSF) protocol, Angle-Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio (Angle-SINR) Table (AST) routing, Ant-Colony Based Routing Algorithm (ARA), Backup Source Routing (BSR), Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM), Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Fisheye State Routing (FSR), Global State Routing (GSR), Location-Aided Routing (LAR), Link-Life Based Routing (LBR), Lightweight Mobile Routing (LMR) protocol, Link-State Routing (LSR), Meshed Multipath Routing Protocol (MMRP) with selective forwarding, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Routing Bridges (rBridges), Region-based Routing Protocol (REGR), Terminode routing, Terminode Remote Routing (TRR), Two-Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), or the like. For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, RSTP can be used for a Layer 2 forwarding algorithm, while OPSF can be used for a Layer 3 forwarding algorithm.
Applicant argues at page 6, regarding claim 9, Examiner asserts that Eglin teaches "wherein the controller (102) is further configured to route the plurality of responses to the one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037)". Eglin fails to disclose the routing of the plurality of responses to the one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller. Eglin fails to disclose the node which may be the public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Eglin as cited by the Examiner would meet the equivalent thereof based on the broadest reasonable interpretation as explained above. Paragraph 0059 teaches Although RSTP has been discussed merely to illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention, any suitable Layer 2 or Layer 3 path selection or forwarding algorithm or routing or networking protocol can be used according to exemplary embodiments, including, but not limited to, STP, Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV), Open Shortest Path First (OPSF) protocol, Angle-Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise-Ratio (Angle-SINR) Table (AST) routing, Ant-Colony Based Routing Algorithm (ARA), Backup Source Routing (BSR), Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility (DREAM), Destination-Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Dynamic Source Routing (DSR), Fisheye State Routing (FSR), Global State Routing (GSR), Location-Aided Routing (LAR), Link-Life Based Routing (LBR), Lightweight Mobile Routing (LMR) protocol, Link-State Routing (LSR), Meshed Multipath Routing Protocol (MMRP) with selective forwarding, Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR), Routing Bridges (rBridges), Region-based Routing Protocol (REGR), Terminode routing, Terminode Remote Routing (TRR), Two-Tier Data Dissemination (TTDD), Zone Routing Protocol (ZRP), or the like. For example, according to an exemplary embodiment, RSTP can be used for a Layer 2 forwarding algorithm, while OPSF can be used for a Layer 3 forwarding algorithm.
Applicant argues Eglin and Jetcheva fail to disclose the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, data traffic is distributed, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In other words, the arguments merely restate the claim, the rejection and prior art and argues feature that are inherent in Layer 2 or 3 protocols as noted in the prior art. The Examiner respectfully submits that none of the claims appear to capture any novel or inventive steps that would not be anticipated or obvious based on the network architecture supporting Layer 2 and 3 protocols.
Applicant argues regarding claim 5, Eglin and Jetcheva fail to disclose the determination of the status of all the number of active endpoints. Further, upon determination of the status of all the number of active endpoints is inactive, the negative response is sent to the at least one PLMN cluster. Jetcheva also fails to disclose the PLMN cluster.
The Examiner respectfully submits that based on the broadest reasonable interpretation Jetcheva teaches wherein if the network interface nodes lack state for the destination of the unicast packet (i.e., this meets determining status), then the designated broadcast server floods the unicast packet onto the self-organizing network (-this meets the response which can be seen as negative if it creates a broadcast loop).
Applicant argues it appears that the action has accidentally referred to 20170250856 as Chen, while the reference appears to be of Jetcheva.
The Examiner has corrected the record to reflect Chen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20080137664.
Based on the above noted remarks the rejection is maintained as proper and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1, hereinafter, ‘Eglin’ in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’.
Consider Claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Eglin teaches a system (100) for performing ingress/egress active-active routing in a network (110), the system (100) comprising: a controller (102) in communication with an at least one cluster associated with a plurality of clusters (i.e., the cluster network noted in – 0012-0023 – see also figure 3), wherein the at least one cluster has a plurality of end points associated with the network (110) (e.g., see endpoints illustrated in at least figure 3 and described in context with 0012-0023 and figure 5), the controller (102) comprising one or more processors (172) coupled to a memory (174) storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (172), the controller (102) configured to: receive, from one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) via the network (110) )(i.e., node communication as described with respect to 0012-0023 and figures 3 and 5), a plurality of requests to be transmitted to at least one cluster (i.e., packet communicated between the nodes 0012-0023 and figure 5); determine status of each end point associated with the at least one cluster(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5); and route, when the status of each said end point associated with the at least one cluster is determined to be active, the plurality of requests through the at least one cluster for transmitting it to each said endpoint, wherein the plurality of requests are routed equally to a plurality of endpoints associated with the at least one cluster based on a routing technique(i.e., packet communicated between the nodes determine node status for routing purposes 0012-0023 and figure 5).
Yao does not specifically teach a PLMN or a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least onepublic land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100),
In analogous art, Yao teaches a network architecture on a public land mobile network (PLMN) (e.g., see at least 0075 and figure 1A). Yao further teaches routing between PLMN endpoints for interconnecting devices within the PLMN (e.g., see at least 0172). The user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least one public land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100) is met based on the connectivity described in at least figure2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try PLMN and a user equipment (UE) (108) communicatively coupled with a controller (102), said UE(108) configured to:send a connection request to the controller (102), wherein the UE (108) is operably coupled to the controller (102) via a network (110);receive an acknowledgment of the connection request from the controller (102);transmit a plurality of signals in response to the connection request to the controller (102), wherein said controller (102) is in communication with at least onepublic land mobile network (PLMN) cluster associated with a plurality of PLMN clusters of a system (100), using simple substitution with the Cluster/routing algorithms of Eglin for the purpose of improving interconnectivity.
Consider Claims 2 and 11, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is configured to route the plurality of requests until the status of the plurality of endpoints become inactive(i.e., active link determination 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 3, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is configured to determine a number of active endpoints at a predefined time(e.g., hop count 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 7 and 16, Eglin teaches wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is further configured to stop routing of the plurality of requests to the said inactive endpoints i.e., inactive link determination 0012-0023).
Consider Claims 8 and 17, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is further configured to receive a plurality of responses from the plurality of endpoints, the plurality of responses are responses to the plurality of requests received by the plurality of endpoints (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037).
Consider Claims 9 and 18, Eglin teaches wherein the controller (102) is further configured to route the plurality of responses to the one or more source node devices (106) in communication with the controller (102) (e.g., see protocols used to determine active versus inactive links figure 3 and 0037).
Claim(s) 4-5, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1 in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Jetcheva et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20170250856 A1, hereinafter, ‘Jetcheva’.
Consider Claims 4 and 13, Eglin teaches the claimed invention except wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster.
In analogous art, Jetcheva teaches wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster (e.g., see at least 0072, 0096-0099 and figures 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eglin and try wherein in case the status of the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to distribute data traffic, pertaining to the plurality of requests in the network (110) proportionally among the remaining number of active end points of said at least one PLMN cluster for the purpose of route optimization.
Consider Claims 5 and 15, Eglin teaches the claimed invention except wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster.
In analogous art, Jetcheva teaches wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster(e.g., see at least 0075, 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eglin and try wherein in case the status of all the number of active endpoints is determined to be inactive, the controller (102) is configured to send a negative response to the at least one PLMN cluster for the purpose of route optimization.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eglin et al. 2007/0159983 A1 in view of Yao et al., US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0176801, hereinafter, ‘Yao’ and further in view of Chen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20080137664 A1, hereinafter, ‘Chen’.
Consider Claims 6 and 12, Eglin teaches the claimed except wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique.
In analogous art, Chen teaches wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique (e.g., see at least 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the routing technique comprises at least one of: a round robin technique, or a weighted scheduling technique.
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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights