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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 10 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-11 are directed to managing data flow. Specifically, the claims recite an input unit configured to be input a packet from a first communication line; an output unit configured to output the packet to a second communication line; a processing unit configured to process the packet; a switching unit configured to switch a path for outputting, from the output unit, the packet input from the input unit between a normal path passing through an access point that the processing unit can access and a bypass path not passing through the access point; a detection unit configured to detect a specific packet that satisfies a specific condition from among a plurality of packets in a state where the path is switched to the bypass path by the switching unit, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as processor, units configured to, server, apparatus merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the processor, units configured to, server, apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of a changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected, wherein the processing unit processes the packet based on the changed state of the communication apparatus after the changing unit changes the state of the communication apparatus. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a processor, units configured to, server, apparatus to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of managing data flow. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, processor, units configured to, server, apparatus perform(s) the steps or functions of a changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected, wherein the processing unit processes the packet based on the changed state of the communication apparatus after the changing unit changes the state of the communication apparatus. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing data flow. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11 further describe the abstract idea of managing data flow. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favor (U.S. Patent 7512129) in view of Nakash (U.S. Patent 8942090).
Regarding claim 1,
Favor a communication apparatus for relaying a packet, the communication apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing a program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to function as: an input unit configured to input the packet via a first communication line from a server apparatus; an output unit configured to output the packet via a second communication line to another communication apparatus; (See figure 3, col 3 line 54 – col 4 line 30, Favor)
a processing unit configured to process the packet; (See figure 3, col 3 line 54 – col 4 line 30, Favor)
a switching unit configured to switch a path for outputting, from the output unit, the packet input from the input unit between a normal path passing through an access point that the processing unit can access and a bypass path not passing through the access point; (See figures 3 -4, Favor teaches column 6 lines 1-51, Favor teaches bypass and normal routes)
a detection unit configured to detect a specific packet that satisfies a specific condition from among a plurality of packets in a state where the path is switched to the bypass path by the switching unit; and (See figures 3 -4, Favor teaches column 6 lines 1-51, Favor teaches switching to bypass path when complete classified)
a changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected. (See figures 3 -4, Favor teaches column 6 lines 1-51, Favor teaches changing state based on whether packet is fully classified or not)
Favor does not explicitly teach but Nakash teaches and a changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected, wherein the processing unit processes the packet based on the changed state of the communication apparatus after the changing unit changes the state of the communication apparatus; (See fig 1-2, col 4 line 31 to col 5 line 15, Nakash teaches detecting a specific packer while in discard/bypass mode)
Nakash also teaches a detection unit configured to detect a specific packet that satisfies a specific condition from among a plurality of packets in a state where the path is switched to the bypass path by the switching unit; (See fig 1-2, col 4 line 31 to col 5 line 15, Nakash teaches that the detection of the low-class packet directly drives the change of the state of the app to the bypass discard stress state mode.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Nakash with Favor because both deal with channel communication. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Nakash into Favor is that Nakash the method enables selectively and judiciously discarding traffic packets from a common input queue in an efficient manner. The method enables efficiently solving problem of handling traffic congestion at the input of a telecommunication switch without use of pre-queuing processing entity, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See column 3, Nakash)
Regarding claim 5,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the changing unit changes a state of the communication apparatus from a bypass state in which the bypass path is used to a normal state in which the normal path is used. (See col 6 lines 42-65, figures 3-4, Favor)
Regarding claim 8,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit detects a packet including specific flag information as the specific packet among the packets.(See figure 3,6, col 9 lines 8-58, Favor)
Claim(s) 2-4,6-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favor (U.S. Patent 7512129) in view of Nakash (U.S. Patent 8942090) in view of Tokura (U.S. Patent 6654353).
Regarding claim 2,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor further to function as: a sensing unit configured to sense a fault in the communication apparatus, wherein the switching unit switches the path to the bypass path in a case where the fault is sensed. (See column 5 lines 3-20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 3,
Favor and Nakash teach the teaches the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the specific packet includes type information indicating a type of the specific packet, and wherein the changing unit changes the communication apparatus to a state corresponding to the type indicated by the type information included in the specific packet. (See col 9 lines 5-37, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 4,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the changing unit changes a state of the communication apparatus to a reset state. (See column 6 lines 26-51, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 6,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the changing unit changes a state of the communication apparatus to a partially energized state in which power supply to the processing unit is cut off and communication through the bypass path is possible. (See col 9 lines 5-37, col 11 lines 25-54, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 7,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the changing unit changes a state of the communication apparatus to a power supply off state in which all power supply is cut off. (See col 9 lines 5-37, col 11 lines 25-54, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 9,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the specific packet includes destination information indicating a destination of the specific packet, and wherein the detection unit detects a specific packet including destination information indicating the communication apparatus in the specific packet. (See col 1 lines 20-45, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 10,
Favor and Nakash teach the teach a communication system comprising: a plurality of communication apparatuses according to claim 1,
Favor and Nakash do explicitly teach but Tokura teaches in daisy chain connection via a communication line; and a server apparatus configured to communicate the packet with each of the plurality of communication apparatuses.(See col 1 lines 20-45, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Regarding claim 11,
Favor and Nakash teach the communication system according to claim 10.
Favor and Nakash do not explicitly teach but Tokura teaches wherein the server apparatus transmits the specific packet to the communication apparatus. (See col 9 lines 5-37, fig 20, Tokira)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Tokura with Favor and Nakash because both deal with redundant networks. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Tokura into Favor and Nakash is that Tokura provides network has redundant link which forms loop among nodes, loop prevents normal connection being maintained, connection relationship can be made normal by controlling switching, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See col 1, Tokura)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of managing data flow which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to managing data flow does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to processor, server, units perform(s) the steps or functions of changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected, wherein the processing unit processes the packet based on the changed state of the communication apparatus after the changing unit changes the state of the communication apparatus. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to managing data flow does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to changing unit configured to change a state of the communication apparatus in a case where the specific packet is detected, wherein the processing unit processes the packet based on the changed state of the communication apparatus after the changing unit changes the state of the communication apparatus are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of managing data flow. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Hillesund, U.S. Patent App 20150121124, teaches streamer redundancy. At least some illustrative embodiments are methods including: in a streamer towed by a survey vessel, sensing a first interconnection of a daisy chain the first interconnection between a first networked unit and a second networked unit, wherein the first networked unit and the second networked unit comprise a portion of a plurality of networked units; and determining that a fault condition exists on the first interconnection in response to the sensing; disabling the first interconnection responsive to the fault condition; enabling a second interconnection responsive to the fault condition, wherein the second interconnection couples the first networked unit and a third networked unit of the plurality of networked units and wherein the second interconnection does not couple to the second networked unit; and reporting information indicative of the fault condition to the survey vessel via the second networked unit.
2. King, U.S. Patent App 20130169038, teaches an apparatus, system, and method are disclosed for assuring uninterruptible battery power for a typical electric motor vehicle powered by an array of series-connected member batteries. Such assurance results from a provision of an electrically-operated bypass switch configured to form a closed electrical bypass circuit path across a faulty first member battery upon activation, thus keeping the vehicle powered up. In one embodiment, the bypass switch is a double-pole multi-contact selector switch connected to each member battery and complimented by a pole-connect switch. For an atypical electric motor vehicle, such as with a multiple battery array parallel configuration, a backup battery may be provided and connected with the faulty battery array in series to displace the bypassed member battery, thus maintaining equal voltage outputs from the battery arrays.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444