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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/20/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Objections”, with respect to claims 15-16 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 15-16 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states “the first threshold fullness value is T1 and the second threshold fullness value is T3”. This statement is incorrect because claim 10 states “the comparison of the fullness of the buffer to each of the first threshold fullness value and the second threshold fullness value”. As shown in figure 9, there seems to be two instances where there is a comparison of two threshold values at the same time which are associated with “T1 < C < T2” and “T2 < C < T3”. Thus, there doesn’t seem to be a comparison of both T1 and T-3 at the same time. For the remarks for claim 14, the Examiner previously stated that claim 11’s “in response to the fullness of the buffer being greater than the second threshold fullness value, determine whether or not to transmit the rate update request based on a second set of criteria” corresponds to the specification’s step 970. This means that in the Examiner’s view T3 corresponds to the second threshold fullness value and so it is unclear why Applicant in indicating “claim 14 is worded in a manner that the second threshold fullness value corresponds to T3 of Figure 9”. The Examiner already knows T3 corresponds to the second threshold fullness value and based the rejection on that.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been amended to now recite “the threshold value is one of a plurality of threshold fullness values including at least a first threshold fullness value and a second threshold fullness value”. This shows that the threshold value may not be any of the first threshold fullness value or the second threshold fullness value. In view of this and in view of claim 1 reciting an implicit comparison with the threshold value, the specification does not support a comparison with the threshold value and the result (e.g., avoiding or transmit the rate update request) and also claim 10’s comparison with the first and second threshold fullness values and the result (e.g., either transmit or don’t transmit the update request). Claims 11-14 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 10 and/or have the same issue and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, in view of claim 11’s “in response to the fullness of the buffer being greater than the second threshold fullness value, determine whether or not to transmit the rate update request based on a second set of criteria” corresponding to the specification’s step 970 which shows step 970 is based on only P1 and not both P1 and P2, the specification does not appear to support “the second set of criteria comprises that both: the amount…the number…”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, in view of the threshold value potentially not being any of the first and second threshold fullness values, it is unclear how in one embodiment of claim 1 there is avoiding transmitting but claim 10’s embodiment has transmitting the rate update request or in another embodiment of claim 1 there is transmitting the rate update request but claim 10’s another embodiment has not transmitting the rate update request. Claims 11-14 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 10 and/or have the same issue and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments made on 8/22/24, 11/12/24 and 7/2/25 to the independent claims to further differentiate from the prior arts of record and resolve any 112 issues indicates the reason(s) the claims are patentable over the prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476