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 filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For claim 1, Applicant states Menten does not disclose “generate fragments based on the first packet and a threshold size, wherein the threshold size is smaller than a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size for the network”; however, as previously cited, Menten discloses when over the MTU size of 132, the packets are fragmented into a threshold size of 128, which meets the claimed limitation. Therefore, since Menten discloses the claimed limitations, the rejections under the prior art are maintained.
Applicant has requested references in response to Official Notice. For claims 242 and 252, see Araki (US 2016/0381119), Adamczyk et al (US 2004/0228363) which disclose a transmission size which depends on the type of application. For claims 243 and 253, see Wei (US 2012/0089799), Follis et al (US 20100037056) which disclose an XOR check fragment which is also transmitted. For claims 248 and 258, see Sharma et al (US 2005/0265371), Kim et al (US 2006/0040699) which disclose a total number of fragments field.
Therefore, since the Official Notice was shown to be instantly showable, the rejection of the claims under the prior art is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 239, 240, 244-247, 249-250, and 254-257 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menten (US 2009/0316698).
For claims 239 and 249, R1 discloses one or more interfaces (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3), wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to a plurality of devices via the one or more interfaces; and a processor configured to (paragraphs 138-140): receive a first packet of a plurality of packets; generate fragments based on the first packet and a threshold size (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 packet needs to be divided into 128 max size fragments for reassembly when over the MTU size of 132), wherein the threshold size is smaller than a maximum transmission unit (MTU) size for the network (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3), the fragments comprising at least a first fragment and a second fragment (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3), wherein the fragments each comprise a subset of the first packet and whereby the first packet is capable of being reassembled using the fragments (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3); and transmit at least the first fragment and the second fragment to a target device (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 destination).
For claims 240 and 250, R1 discloses the threshold size is separate from the MTU size for the network (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3).
For claims 244 and 254, R1 discloses transmitting at least the first fragment and the second fragment to the target device comprises transmitting, by the computing device, a copy of the first fragment and a copy of the second fragment to the target device (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3).
For claims 245 and 255, R1 discloses the first fragment and the second fragment are transmitted to the target device via the one or more interfaces (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3).
For claims 246 and 256, generating, by the computing device, at least one fragment-copy of the first fragment and at least one fragment-copy of the second fragment (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 re-fragmenting the packet); identifying, by the computing device, at least one characteristic of the first packet (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 matched rule); determining, by the computing device, a first time period and a second time period based on the at least one characteristic (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 can be either the time of receiving the whole packet or a regular delay time); and transmitting, by the computing device, the first fragment, the at least one fragment-copy of the first fragment, the second fragment, and the at least one fragment-copy of the second fragment to a target device, wherein transmission of the at least one fragment-copy of the first fragment is delayed with respect to transmission of the first fragment according to the first time period and transmission of the at least one fragment-copy of the second fragment is delayed with respect to transmission of the second fragment according to the second time period (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 delaying the fragments transmitted according to a matched rule).
For claims 247 and 257, R1 discloses the first time period and the second time period are the same (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123 delaying until the whole packet is received).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 242, 243, 248, 252, 253, 258 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1.
For claims 242 and 252, R1 does not explicitly disclose the threshold size depends on an app type for the first packet; However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of the threshold size depends on an app type for the first packet was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use the threshold size depends on an app type for the first packet. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly use method of fragmenting packets, decrease latency in latency sensitive applications, and design choice.
For claims 243 and 253, R1 does not explicitly state generating, by the computing device, a check-fragment comprising an XOR of at least the first fragment and the second fragment; and transmitting, by the computing device, at least the first fragment, the second fragment, and the check-fragment to the target device; however, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of generating, by the computing device, a check-fragment comprising an XOR of at least the first fragment and the second fragment; and transmitting, by the computing device, at least the first fragment, the second fragment, and the check-fragment to the target device was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use generating, by the computing device, a check-fragment comprising an XOR of at least the first fragment and the second fragment; and transmitting, by the computing device, at least the first fragment, the second fragment, and the check-fragment to the target device. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly use method of fragmenting packets, to allow for correct data reception, to allow for outbound filtering, and design choice.
For claims 248 and 258, R1 discloses the fragments each comprise a field indicating that the respective fragment is associated with the first packet (Abstract, paragraphs 16, 22, 32-42, 45, 59, 66, 68, 89, 107, 117, 121,123, Fig. 3). R1 does not explicitly state a field indicating a total number of fragments representing the first packet; however, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a field indicating a total number of fragments representing the first packet was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use a field indicating a total number of fragments representing the first packet. The technical reasoning to combine would be to use a commonly use method of fragmenting packets, to allow for correct data reception, and design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 241 and 251 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, R1, does not appear to disclose “determining, by the computing device, whether the first fragment or the second fragment exceeds the MTU size for the network; and generating, by the computing device, sub-fragments based on the first fragment or the second fragment responsive to a determination that at least one of the first fragment or the second fragment exceeds the MTU size for the network” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
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 CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463