Detailed Action
This action is responsive to claims filed on July 19 2023. Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 19 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
The term “M nodes” in claims 1-2, 5, 8-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “M nodes” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 1-2 use "M nodes" without a clear boundary. The specification merely discloses that m= n/d in [0085], but fails to define m with sufficient clarity to inform those skilled in the art whether it is a fixed, variable, or minimum quantity of nodes per group. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore indefinite.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim limitation “each of the plurality of nodes includes an ASIC switch that switches and routes an electrical signal corresponding to an optical signal received from the up to m nodes to a plurality of servers, the ASIC switch having switching capacity corresponding to average incoming traffic of the plurality of nodes, is addressed by any node in a group to which a source node belongs only in a time slot associated with the group to which the source node belongs in a reception cycle period including a plurality of time slots, and” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim recites a function “is addressed by any node in a group to which a source node belongs only in a time slot associated with the group…” without clearly reciting sufficient structure to perform the function, and the specification (see, Figs. 13-15, [0095]- [0098]) describes only a high-level concept off addressing in time slots rather than a definite structure that performs the addressing. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Due to the noted § 112 issues, a proper prior art analysis under 35 U.S.C. §103 cannot be completed at this time until the claims are amended to be definite. The scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty due to the indefiniteness discussed above. The claim language, particularly the recitation of “is addressed by any node in a group to which a source node belongs only in a time slot associated with the group…” in claim 1, is ambiguous and fails to provide clear boundaries for determining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Until the claims are amended to clearly define the subject matter, a proper search and examination for patentability under 35 U.S.C. §103 cannot be meaningfully conducted. Accordingly, no claims have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Entelis et al. (US 2022/0046114), which teaches frame structure for communication in CAN (see figure 4).
Kim et al. (US 2018/0109857), which teaches a request message for requesting an allocation of a time slot and the optical switching path to transmit the generated optical frame (see figure 7).
Ahuja et al. (US 2014/0199067), which teaches bandwidth of data traffic of a transport path over a time period (see figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Francesca Lima Santos whose telephone number is (571)272-6521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30am-5pm, ET.
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, Marcus R Smith can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
/FRANCESCA LIMA SANTOS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468