DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 12 are amended; claims 2 and 5 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see Remarks, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0306910), and claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo and Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0248797) are maintained.
Applicant has provided no specific remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103. Examiner submits that the amendments to claim 1 do not recite the same limitations previously recited in claim 2 and are broader. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained as detailed below.
New grounds of rejection are also made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “calculating the longest possible transfer time between transmitter and receiver” (line 12), which lacks articles. Examiner suggests the amendment “calculating the longest possible transfer time between the transmitter and the receiver”.
Claim 10 recites “calculating the longest possible transfer time between transmitter and receiver” (line 12), which lacks articles. Examiner suggests the amendment “calculating the longest possible transfer time between the transmitter and the receiver”.
Claim 1 recites “calculating the longest possible transfer time between transmitter and receiver” (line 13), which lacks articles. Examiner suggests the amendment “calculating the longest possible transfer time between the transmitter and the receiver”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 4, and 6-15 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.
Claim 1 recites “calculating the longest possible transfer times of data streams between any two network users along respective transmission paths according to an interference model based on data streams on the same transmission path”. This limitation is unclear, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. For example, it is not understood what is meant by “the longest possible transfer times …on the same transmission path”, since a transmission path could only have one “longest possible transmission time” (singular), and not “longest possible transfer times” (plural). Furthermore, it is not understood which of “any two network users” should be used for the claimed calculation. Finally, it is unclear which of “a transmission path” (line 6) or “respective transmission paths” (line 9) is being referred to in “the same transmission path” (line 11). Examiner notes that this list is non-exhaustive. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, and 13-15 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale. Claims 10 and 12 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 11 is rejected as depending from claim 10 and under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Exemplary claim 1 recites a method comprising grouping network users along a transmission path between a transmitter and receiver, calculating the longest possible transfer times between the network users, summing the calculated transfer times, and using the sum as a basis for scheduling. The claim is directed to a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion), as the “grouping” of network users, calculating/summing of longest transfer times, and “scheduling” for a network, as recited at a high level, are reasonable done by a human. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any additional elements that impose meaningful limit on the abstract idea, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 10 and 12 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, and 13-15 merely provide additional details regarding the composition of the network, characteristics of scheduling, and generic processor/memory arrangements, which do not impose meaningful limit or amount to significantly more. Accordingly, claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0306910), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 1, Guo disclosed a method for improving scheduling in a time-critical computer network (time sensitive network, ¶[0072]) having a plurality of network users (nodes, i.e., network users, connected via network, ¶[0072]-[0073]), the method comprising the steps of:
grouping at first some or all of the network users along a transmission path (determining/setting up, i.e., grouping, routing paths, ¶0182], [0212]) from a network user acting as a transmitter to a network user acting as a receiver (path including data traffic source node/talker, i.e., transmitter, and data traffic destination node/listener, i.e., receiver, ¶[0072]),
calculating the longest possible transfer times of data streams between any two network users along respective transmission paths according to an interference model based on data streams on the same transmission path (computing a link communication delay, i.e., longest possible transfer time, for each link of a relay node, i.e., between any two network users, ¶[0183], [0212]; determining interference links, i.e., interference model, ¶[0109]; streams on a routing path, i.e., the same transmission path, ¶[0212]),
calculating the longest possible transfer time between transmitter and receiver by summing the calculated transfer times (calculating E2E TSN delay for a stream, ¶[0091]), and
using this calculated transfer time between transmitter and receiver as the basis for time scheduling in the network (generating a schedule based on calculated delays, ¶[0186], [0198], [0212]).
Regarding claim 6, Guo disclosed the method wherein scheduling of the time-critical network takes place in a data stream-based manner (scheduling TSN streams, ¶[0118]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 7, Guo disclosed the method wherein an embedded time slot is assigned to each data stream (schedule including Time Offset and Transmission duration, i.e., time slot, ¶[0124]-[0125]).
Regarding claim 8, Guo disclosed the method wherein scheduling of the time-critical network is traffic-class based (classifying/prioritizing TSN data streams as time critical or non-time critical, i.e., traffic-class based, ¶[0212]).
Regarding claim 9, Guo disclosed the method wherein competing data streams of the same network class are taken into account (scheduling multiple streams of same classification, ¶[0198]).
Regarding claim 14, Guo disclosed the method wherein each network user has a processor and a memory that can carry out a method according to claim 1 (processor and memory, ¶[0222]-[0225]).
Regarding claim 15, Guo disclosed the method wherein scheduling of the network users is carried out on the basis of results of the method by one of the users (generating a schedule based on calculated delays, ¶[0186], [0198], [0212]; method executed by node, i.e., network user, claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2021/0306910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2018/0248797), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Guo disclosed the method as detailed above. Guo did not disclose the method wherein the networks are in ring topology or line topology.
Kim disclosed:
wherein the networks are in ring topology or line topology (time sensitive network in a ring topology, ¶[0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the networks of Guo where the networks are in ring topology as claimed, because doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element (i.e., a TSN in a ring topology) for another (i.e., the TSN of Guo) to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Kamal B. Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441