DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 4/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “at least one processing unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanda (USPAN 2006/0107166) in view of Wu (USPAN 2008/0195719) and Ho (USPAN 2003/0135640).
Consider claims 1, 7, and 17, Nanda discloses a system for efficient network communication in (see figures 1 and 5, wherein disclosed is said system) and a corresponding method (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method), comprising:
a first processor to provide a plurality of communications to a second processor, the plurality of communications associated with a set of sequential messages sent over multiple timepoints, wherein at least one communication of the plurality of communications comprises a request for acknowledgement from the second processor of a receipt of the set of sequential messages, and wherein the first processor is to receive a summary of the set of sequential messages in a dense format as the acknowledgement (see paragraph 88: a first device transmits a group of one or more frames to a second device and the first device transmits a BAR (block acknowledgement request, i.e. “a request for acknowledgement”) with a transmit sequence number associated with the transmitted group of frames. At 1130, the first device may continue to transmit additional groups of one or more frames, updating the transmit sequence number for each group and transmitting a BAR for each group with the associated transmit sequence number. At 1140, the first device receives a BA from the second device [wherein the BA, as a block acknowledgement, is said “summary of the set of sequential messages in a dense format as the acknowledgement”. At 1150, the first device determines valid NAKs and at 1160, the first device may reschedule transmissions accordingly).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nanda does not specifically disclose using an unreliable transport protocol.
Wu discloses using an unreliable transport protocol (see title and paragraph 112: a reservation protocol for use in unreliable transport situation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nanda and combine it with the noted teachings of Wu. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a resource reservation protocol in an unreliable packet transport protocol (see paragraph 2 of Wu).
Nanda does not specifically disclose that the request for the acknowledgement is associated with one or more of a timing or a count.
Ho discloses that the request for the acknowledgement is associated with one or more of a timing or a count (see claim 2: the acknowledgement request includes a value indicative of the number of frames preceding the acknowledgement request which the receiving device is requested to acknowledge and await).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nanda and combine it with the noted teachings of Ho. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method in which a receiving device acknowledges a group of data frames transmitted to it but a transmitting device and in which the transmitting device informs the receiving device which frames in the group to acknowledge (see paragraph 4 of Ho).
Consider claims 2, 8, and 13, Nanda discloses that the dense format is represented by fewer number of bits than the set of sequential messages (see paragraph 88: this is the very function of a BA (block acknowledgement): to use fewer bits due to the BA having a much smaller message size than the messages that it acknowledges, thus lowering overhead signaling).
Consider claims 3, 9, and 14, Nanda discloses that the dense format comprises a bit mask representing the set of sequential messages received by the second processor (see figure 13 and paragraph 91: BA bitmap, i.e. bit mask, representing the set of messages received by the second processor).
Consider claims 4, 18, and 20, Nanda discloses to perform a comparison of the summary to the set of sequential messages; and resend at least part of the set of sequential messages upon a determination of a dropped packet in the summary (see paragraph 88: at 1150 of figure 11, the first device determines valid NAKs and at 1160, the first device may reschedule transmissions accordingly).
Consider claims 5, 10, and 15, Nanda discloses that the dense format comprises a list of received sequence numbers associated with the set of sequential messages (see figure 11 and paragraph 88: the first device receives a BA from the second device with an indication of the TSN (transmit sequence numbers); also, see figure 13, wherein disclosed is the format of the BA with the corresponding sequence number (TSN) for each sequential message).
Consider claims 6 and 11, Nanda discloses the set of sequential messages (see above), but does not disclose that the count is for a first number of received packets or messages or a second number of dropped packets or messages.
Ho discloses that the count is for a first number of received packets or messages or a second number of dropped packets or messages (see claim 2: the acknowledgement request includes a value indicative of the number of frames preceding the acknowledgement request which the receiving device is requested to acknowledge and await).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nanda and combine it with the noted teachings of Ho. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method in which a receiving device acknowledges a group of data frames transmitted to it but a transmitting device and in which the transmitting device informs the receiving device which frames in the group to acknowledge (see paragraph 4 of Ho).
Consider claims 12 and 19, Nanda discloses a system (see figures 1 and 5, wherein disclosed is said system) and a corresponding method (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method) comprising:
at least one processing unit to support communication to a plurality of processing units, wherein the at least one processing unit is further to receive, as part of the communication, a request for acknowledgement of receipt of a set of sequential messages communicated over multiple timepoints in the communication, and wherein the at least one processing unit is further to provide the acknowledgement as a summary in a dense format (see paragraph 88: a first device transmits a group of one or more frames to a second device and the first device transmits a BAR (block acknowledgement request, i.e. “a request for acknowledgement”) with a transmit sequence number associated with the transmitted group of frames. At 1130, the first device may continue to transmit additional groups of one or more frames, updating the transmit sequence number for each group and transmitting a BAR for each group with the associated transmit sequence number. At 1140, the first device receives a BA from the second device [wherein the BA, as a block acknowledgement, is said “summary of the set of sequential messages in a dense format as the acknowledgement”. At 1150, the first device determines valid NAKs and at 1160, the first device may reschedule transmissions accordingly).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nanda does not specifically disclose using an unreliable transport protocol.
Wu discloses using an unreliable transport protocol (see title and paragraph 112: a reservation protocol for use in unreliable transport situation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nanda and combine it with the noted teachings of Wu. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a resource reservation protocol in an unreliable packet transport protocol (see paragraph 2 of Wu).
Nanda does not specifically disclose that the request for the acknowledgement is associated with one or more of a timing or a count.
Ho discloses that the request for the acknowledgement is associated with one or more of a timing or a count (see claim 2: the acknowledgement request includes a value indicative of the number of frames preceding the acknowledgement request which the receiving device is requested to acknowledge and await).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nanda and combine it with the noted teachings of Ho. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method in which a receiving device acknowledges a group of data frames transmitted to it but a transmitting device and in which the transmitting device informs the receiving device which frames in the group to acknowledge (see paragraph 4 of Ho).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights