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, see section titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)”, with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.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 argues “With regard to claim 14, the feature "the second set of criteria comprises that both: the amount...the number" was rejected as lacking written support. Applicant respectfully disagrees. This feature is supported by element 980 of Figure 9 and the corresponding written description, which describe a set of criteria "P1 & P2" that comprise both the amount of time (P1) and the number of ACK packets (P2)”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner agrees that element 980 supports the "the second set of criteria comprises that both: the amount...the number", but only in a vacuum and not in view of claims 10-11.
Applicant argues “The Office Action appears to assume that this interpretation of the term "the second set of criteria" is inconsistent with its meaning in claim 11. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 recites "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." However, claim 11 does not define the "second threshold fullness value" as corresponding specifically to threshold value T2 of Figure 9. Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which generally recites a "second threshold fullness value that is greater than the first threshold fullness value." Therefore, in an embodiment in which the "first threshold fullness value" corresponds to threshold value T1 of Figure 9, the "second threshold fullness value" may correspond to either one of threshold value T2 or threshold value T3, since each of those values is greater than T1”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner partially agrees with what Applicant stated above. 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”. In view of this, claim 11 recites 3 situations, each corresponding to either step 960 or 970 branch and so claim 11’s “the second threshold fullness value” of “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” correspond to the step 970 branch which makes it so that T2 corresponds to the claimed “second threshold fullness value” of “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” and not T3 as argued by Applicant. Examiner believes the last situation of claim 11 should correspond to step 980 branch, but the way claim 10 is written doesn’t make it so.
Applicant argues “claim 14 may be understood to cover an embodiment in which the "second threshold fullness value" corresponds to threshold value T3. Both of these embodiments are consistent with the recitations and requirements of claims 10 and 11. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 14 is properly supported by the specification, and that no amendments are necessary.”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner agrees that "second threshold fullness value" should correspond to threshold value T3, but the way claim 10 is written as discussed above causes “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” to correspond to step 970 branch and step 970 branch has one criteria and not two criteria as in claim 14.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”, with respect to claims 10-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10-14 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) 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 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 (as discussed above) 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…”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights