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 Amendment
This Action is in response to amendments/ remarks filed on 04/06/2026.
Independent claims 1, 17, 23, and 25-26 have been amended. Claim 27 is cancelled.
Claims 1-26 are presented for examination, and remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Objections
In the non-final office Action mailed on 01/05/2026, claim 25 was objected to due to minor informalities. In the response filed on 04/06/2026, applicant amends the claim to obviate the objection. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In the non-final office Action mailed on 01/05/2026, independent claims 1, 17, 23, and 25-26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In the response filed on 04/06/2026, applicant amends the claims to obviate the rejections. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim rejections have been withdrawn.
In the non-final office Action mailed on 01/05/2026, claim 27 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form. In the response filed on 04/06/2026, applicant cancels the claim, and as a result, the respective claim rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 8-11 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 04/06/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“To the extent that the rejections are applicable to the claims as amended, Applicant respectfully traverses as follows.
Independent claim 1 recites the features of "receiving, by the remote node, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) from the ECU and differentiating, responsive to a flag in a header of the PDU, between (i) mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss, and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss." In rejecting the feature above, the Office properly acknowledged that "Newman does not explicitly disclose differentiating, responsive to a flag in a header of the PDU, between (i) mailbox data and (ii) streaming data that is tolerable of the data loss being included in the PDU." Office Action at pp. 6-7. Instead, the Office alleged that Takamichi discloses this feature and one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Newman with Takamichi. Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for at least the following reasons.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly indicated that a proper motivation to combine must be supported by substantial evidence. In Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected using generic statements ("The motivation to combine would be because you wanted to build something better. You wanted a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features, makes it more attractive to your customers, because by combining these two things you could do something new that hadn't been able to do before.") of wanting improvements as a motivation to combine. 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("This testimony is generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements"). Further, the Court held that "[i]t also fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does." Id., emphasis in original.
Here, the Office alleged that one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine Newman and Takamichi to "suppress the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network, so as to prevent effective availability of the network bandwidth from being reduced." Office Action at p. 8. Such reasoning is a generic goal that virtually every network engineer wants to achieve. It would be difficult to find a network engineer that wants to jam a network channel with useless traffic. However, there are many ways to reduce traffic over a network. These include implementing more efficient coding algorithms, reducing overhead, improving signal to noise ratio, utilizing better hardware (e.g., antenna array), data compression, just to name a few. The Office has not explained how one skilled in the art, in order to "suppress useless traffic," would modify Newman with the teachings of Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention. (See page 9-10 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026).
The applicant’s refers to Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., where the obviousness opinions offered by Verizon’s expert regarding the motivation to combine references was deemed insufficient. More specifically, the Verizon’s expert testified:
“The motivation to combine would be because you wanted to build something better. You wanted a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features, makes it more attractive to your customers, because by combining these two things you could do something new that hadn’t been able to do before.”
The district court determined, and the examiner acknowledges/ concurs, that the above testimony by Verizon’s expert is generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements. Moreover, the obviousness opinions offered by Verizon’s expert were conclusory, lacked factual support, and never provided any factual basis for assertions as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.
However, unlike the opinion from Verizon’s expert, the motivation to combine, provided in the Office Action in this case, is not a mere a conclusory and factually unsupported statement, but rather fully supported and articulated reasoning, as provided by the cited reference to Takamichi itself (see [0033]-[0036] reproduced herein below for ease).
[0033] According to the present invention, in an IP network using a wireless access system as an access means, there is achieved an effect that a flow of user traffic having no meaning in the application layer into the IP network can be decreased.
[0034] Thereby, the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network is suppressed, so it is possible to prevent effective availability of the network bandwidth from being reduced. As a result, throughput of each user is improved. For a user whose wireless link quality is degraded, IP datagrams are discarded, so no voice is caused in VoIP or images are interrupted in image communications in the discard section. However, discard is performed only for a section where it is predicted that interruption of voices or noises are caused frequently or image distortions are large so it is no meaning in the application layer. Therefore, no demerit will be caused, substantially. In contrast, for the user, the network efficiency will be improved due to a discard control to other users, whereby there is a merit that an improvement in throughput can be expected when the wireless link quality is high.
[0035] In recent years, UDP traffic of delay high propriety such as VoIP and image transmission increases, particularly. As the traffic amount of the delay high-priority class increases, throughput of the delay low-priority class does not increase due to a preference control performed by a router device or the like, and together with a rate control and a time out function of TCP, throughput of TCP traffic does not increase particularly. In the present invention, it is possible to suppress a flow of useless traffic into an IP network, and to reduce the total amount of traffic in the IP network, in particular, the UDP traffic ratio. Thereby, throughput of a user transmitting and receiving TCP traffic can be improved. Further, for communication network providers, there is an effect that throughput of a network can be improved without capital investments such as addition of router devices in the IP network and wider broadband of transmission lines.
[0036] Further, by counting the number of IP datagrams during the wireless link quality being degraded, there is an effect that the charged amount during the wireless link quality being degraded is adjusted in the pay per packet system. Thereby, users have a merit of expecting suppression in communication expenses. Further, communication network providers also have a merit of attracting contracting users easily by including the merit in the service policy.
Therefore, unlike the Verizon’s expert, Office is neither using generic statements, nor lacking factual support. Applicant highlights that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly indicated that a proper motivation to combine must be supported by substantial evidence. As set forth above, the motivation to combine in this case is supported by evidence directly provided in the cited reference.
Applicant argues that such reasoning is a generic goal that virtually every network engineer wants to achieve, that it would be difficult to find a network engineer that wants to jam a network channel with useless traffic, and that there are many ways to reduce traffic over a network. These include implementing more efficient coding algorithms, reducing overhead, improving signal to noise ratio, utilizing better hardware (e.g., antenna array), data compression, just to name a few.
In response, Examiner agrees that network engineers want to achieve a jam-free network channel without useless traffic, and that is exactly what the cited reference to Takamichi contemplates to achieve as well. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Although there may be many ways to reduce traffic over a network, the cited reference to Takamichi does it in a specific way – by introducing protocol flag in the header area of an IP datagram to identify protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment encapsulated on the payload area (see [0011]; also see [0029]-[0030]), and by not performing retransmission control in the transport layer for UDP datagram even when packets are lost (see [0007] and [0021]), thereby suppressing the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network (see [0031] and [0034]). Paragraph [0031] puts this in context by disclosing that if the UDP traffic loss rate calculated for each constant unit time is degraded from the threshold set in advance, the UDP traffic is discarded. Therefore, it is possible to suppress transfer within the IP network of an UDP traffic sequence which does not have meaning in the application layer.
Applicant argues that the Office has not explained how one skilled in the art, in order to "suppress useless traffic," would modify Newman with the teachings of Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner disagrees, as the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 01/05/2026 has meticulously, for each claim:
(A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art;
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
(C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the motivation to combine.
Examiner refers to MPEP § 2141.III and § 2143 to note that in determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). If the search of the prior art and the resolution of the Graham factual inquiries reveal that an obviousness rejection may be made using the familiar teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) rationale, then such a rejection is appropriate.
Consistent with KSR, the Federal Circuit stated that the obviousness analysis is not "confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation." Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795, 2021 USPQ2d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). See also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1350, 121 USPQ2d 1139, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (recalling that the Supreme Court has instructed decisionmakers to "apply ‘an expansive and flexible approach’ to obviousness") (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395). The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, “some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention” is but just one way to support a conclusion of obviousness. As shown above, citing KSR’s rationales, there are other rationales that are also equally valid. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is non-persuasive.
“Additionally, the motivation above requires the determination of what constitutes as "useless traffic." The Office appears to equate streaming data as the UDP (not admitted by Applicant). Office Action at p. 8. However, there is no indication in either Newman or Takamichi, or any of the applied references, that data transmitted via UDP, or UDP data lost during transmission, is "useless traffic." As such, one skilled in the art, in viewing Newman and Takamichi, would not be motivated to modify Newman with Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention.” (See page 10 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Takamichi teaches:
For a user whose wireless link quality is degraded, IP datagrams are discarded, so no voice is caused in VoIP or images are interrupted in image communications in the discard section. However, discard is performed only for a section where it is predicted that interruption of voices or noises are caused frequently or image distortions are large so it is no meaning in the application layer… UDP traffic of delay high propriety such as VoIP and image transmission increases, particularly. As the traffic amount of the delay high-priority class increases, throughput of the delay low-priority class does not increase due to a preference control performed by a router device or the like, and together with a rate control and a time out function of TCP, throughput of TCP traffic does not increase particularly. In the present invention, it is possible to suppress a flow of useless traffic into an IP network, and to reduce the total amount of traffic in the IP network, in particular, the UDP traffic ratio. Thereby, throughput of a user transmitting and receiving TCP traffic can be improved (see [0033]-[0036], also reproduced herein above).
It is known that User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is fundamentally designed to be insensitive to data loss, meaning it does not guarantee delivery, order, or retransmission of lost packets. As set forth above, paragraph [0031] of Takamichi puts this in context by disclosing that if the UDP traffic loss rate calculated for each constant unit time is degraded from the threshold set in advance, the UDP traffic is discarded. Therefore, it is possible to suppress transfer within the IP network of an UDP traffic sequence which does not have meaning in the application layer.
Therefore, the examiner disagrees that there is no indication in any of the applied references, that data retransmitted via UDP (e.g. when wireless link quality is degraded beyond predefined threshold), which does not have meaning in the application layer, is “useless traffic” and that one skilled in the art, in viewing Newman and Takamichi, would not be motivated to modify Newman with Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention.
“Further, if the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing. The seal construction taught in the primary reference required rigidity for operation, whereas the seal in the claimed invention required resiliency. The court reversed the rejection holding the "suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.").
Newman already discloses schemes for handling lost or corrupted PDU. Specifically, "the lost or corrupted PDU is retransmitted via a different path of the network, different from the path used to transmit the original PDU. Lost or corrupted PDUs may not be retransmitted if the estimated retransmission delay is greater than a delay tolerance associated with the quality of service requirements of the application." Newman at Abstract. As such, Newman teaches retransmitting lost/corrupted PDU via a different network path, if the delay is not greater than the delay tolerance. If Newman is modified by Takamichi, are lost UDP packets (which the Office alleged to be the streaming data in independent claim 1, not admitted by Applicant) retransmitted via a different path if the retransmission delay is less than the delay tolerance? If UDP packets are not transmitted as disclosed by Takamichi, then such modification would change the principle of operation of Newman.
In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because one skilled in the art would not combine Newman and Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention. As such, independent claim 1 is patentable over Newman and Takamichi. Kondrat, Ryu, Sabaa, Jung, Le, Hooper, and McLean do not cure the deficiencies above. As such, independent claim 1 is patentable over the applied art.” (See page 10-11 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026).
Newman’s invention is only concerned with data (packet streams) that may have requirements regarding reliability, latency, packet loss, or other quality of service characteristics (see [0023] and [0060]). Newman discloses schemes for handling lost or corrupted PDU because it is preferred to minimize latency, and maintain packet loss below a maximum loss tolerance associated with such application (such as TCP-type). Although, like many network engineers, Newman also expresses that it is desirable, when possible, to minimize additional control overhead, packet retransmissions, and signaling (see [0023]), Newman’s invention is not concerned with handling data streams that is insensitive to packet loss (such as UDP). Therefore, Newman does not differentiate packet types.
Takamichi improves upon the teachings of Newman by being able to also handle loss tolerant data packets. Takamichi does it in a specific way – by introducing protocol flag in the header area of an IP datagram to identify protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment encapsulated on the payload area (see [0011]; also see [0029]-[0030]), and by not performing retransmission control in the transport layer for UDP datagram even when packets are lost (see [0007] and [0021]), thereby suppressing the useless traffic amount transferred (by suppressing retransmission) to the IP network (see [0031] and [0034]).
When the teachings of Newman is modified/ improved by Takamichi, protocol flag would be used in the header area of an IP datagram to identify protocol data type (as an improvement disclosed by Takamichi, at least in paragraph [0011]), lost/corrupted TCP PDU would be retransmitted via a different network path (as taught by Newman at least in [0023] and [0060]) and lost UDP/ streaming packets are suppressed, and not retransmitted (as an improvement disclosed by Takamichi; see [0021] that specifically teaches for UDP, retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer, and there is no retransmission means even when packets are lost).
Applicant argues that if UDP packets are not transmitted as disclosed by Takamichi, then such modification would change the principle of operation of Newman.
In response, and as highlighted previously, it is noted that Takamichi does not disclose that UDP packets are not transmitted. Rather, Takamichi only teaches that for UDP, retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer. Not performing retransmission control or retransmission is not the same as not transmitting. Also, if UDP packets are not retransmitted (as disclosed by Takamichi), then such modification would NOT change the principle of operation of Newman. Examiner disagrees that such modification would change the principle of operation of Newman because the technique of handling UDP (streaming data) is introduced/ improved by disclosure of Takamichi, which does not discourage or alter the way TCP data is handled. To the contrary, both the references ( Newman and Takamichi) support TCP as well as retransmission (in Newman, see [0060] and Abstract; in Takamichi, see [0010] [0026] and [0110] in view of Fig.7). Even with the improved handling on UDP data, Newman’s invention would still be functional, as lost/corrupted TCP PDU would still be retransmitted via a different network path, while lost/corrupted UDP stream would be suppressed.
Therefore, examiner disagrees that Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because one skilled in the art would not combine Newman and Takamichi to arrive at the claimed invention, and/or that the independent claim 1 is patentable over the applied art.
Applicant's arguments for independent claims 17, 23, and 25-26 (see page 11 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness given the similarly recited limitations of claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the independent claim persists.
Applicant's arguments for dependent claims 2-16, 18-22 and 24 (see page 11 of REMARKS, filed 04/06/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for respective independent claims. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claim persists.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 15, 17-18, 20, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Newman discloses a computer-implemented method for managing data between an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and a remote node of a system (see [0006]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the remote node, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) from the ECU (see [0006]; a series of protocol data units (PDUs) are transmitted from a first device via at least a first path of a network to a second device), the mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss (see [0028]; the destination device must make sure the PDUs are delivered to upper layers in a proper order; lost PDUs may be omitted as long as the number of lost PDUs does not exceed the loss tolerance; also see [0055]; Sequence numbering ensures that the frames received are guaranteed to be in the order they have been sent, and no frames are lost);
comparing, by the remote node, a sequence number of the PDU found in a sequence number field of the PDU (see [0054]-[0055]; a sequence number field in the Ethernet frame; Logical Link Control (LLC) type 2 header may be added to include the sequence numbers for a particular MAC layer PDU stream) to an expected sequence number of the PDU (see [0033]-[0034]; first device 110 and the second device 130 maintain a register of sequence numbers associated with the packet stream... the sequence numbers provide an identification that the second device 130 may use to indicate which PDUs are received correctly or which are lost or corrupted), the sequence number of the PDU being:
incremented by one for each transmitted frame (see [0074]; receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984), and
equal to zero only responsive to an unexpected reset of the remote node ([0038]; a signal from the first device 110 may indicate to the receiver to perform certain actions, such as... reset the sequence numbering window; examiner articulates that sequence number of the PDU would be reset to zero, as starting sequence number of the PDU is 0 based on teaching from [0074]); and
sending, by the remote node, a message to the ECU indicating a mismatch, responsive to the sequence number of the PDU mismatching the expected sequence number (see [0033]; first device 110 and the second device 130 maintain a register of sequence numbers associated with the packet stream... the sequence numbers provide an identification that the second device 130 may use to indicate which PDUs are received correctly or which are lost or corrupted. For example, the second device 130 may send a selective acknowledgement (SACK) message to the first device 110, the SACK message identifying the lost or corrupted PDUs; also see [0037]; a SACK message (or NACK message) from the receiver to the sender may be associated with identifying lost PDUs; also see [0046]-[0047] and [0057]).
Although, and as set forth above, Newman discloses receiving, by the remote node, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) from the ECU (see [0006]), and also discloses a sequence number field in the PDU (see [0033]), Newman does not explicitly disclose differentiating, responsive to a flag in a header of the PDU, between (i) mailbox data and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss. Newman also does not explicitly disclose the sequence number of the PDU being configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
However, in an analogous art, Takamichi discloses receiving, by the remote node, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) from the ECU (see [0029]; the present invention is a communication device for an IP network, provided in the IP network using a wireless link as an access means, which receives a radio signal from a user side radio terminal) and differentiating, responsive to a flag in a header of the PDU (see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that TCP traffic corresponds to mailbox data being included in the PDU that is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss; examiner also articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data being included in the PDU that is tolerable of a data loss), between (i) mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss (see [0010]; TCP is a protocol having a retransmission controlling function in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals, having such a characteristic that packet loss is reduced due to a retransmission control. However, real time properties are degraded, so it is suitable for data communications in which request for real time properties is not high such as file downloading (“mailbox data”); also see [0026]; TCP timeout may be cased due to loss of IP datagrams in a wireless link section... In the case of timeout, a user has to transmit the TCP traffic again; also see [0110] in view of Fig.7: The sequence number of TCP in FIG. 7 … is transferred end-to-end between the communication device 40 and the communication device 31 for an order control in the transport layer), and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss (see [0007]; UDP is a protocol in which retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals. Therefore, although packets may be lost, UDP is excellent in real time properties, so it is suitable for traffic requiring real time properties such as voice communications (VOIP: voice over IP), TV phones and visual communications (“streaming data”); also see [0021]; Particularly, as for UDP, retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer, and there is no retransmission means even when packets are lost).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takamichi with Newman to differentiate, responsive to a flag in a header of the PDU, between (i) mailbox data being included in the PDU and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU that is tolerable of the data loss.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suppress the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network, so as to prevent effective availability of the network bandwidth from being reduced (Takamichi: [0034]).
Newman (modified by Takamichi) also does not explicitly disclose the sequence number of the PDU being configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
However, in an analogous art, Kondrat teaches comparing (see Fig.7:708), by the remote node, a sequence number of the PDU found in a sequence number field of the PDU (see Fig.5:500) to an expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 16-18: the sequence number 500 is extracted from the frame in step 704 and is compared to the next expected sequence number), the sequence number of the PDU being: incremented by one for each transmitted frame (see Col.12: lines 8-22; the sequence number will be incremented to calculate the next expected sequence number), and configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one (see Col.10: lines 37-43; A frame sequence number 500 is scoped to a conversation between a pair of source and destination endpoints. The width (in bits) of the frame sequence number 500 controls the maximum number of unique frame sequence numbers before the sequence number is wrapped-around; for example, a sequence number field 500 of 8-bits allows for 255 sequence numbers in the sequence number space; also see Col.12: lines 8-22; The increment operation will roll the sequence number back to 1 if the maximum sequence number value is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi so that the sequence number of the PDU is configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 2, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman further discloses informing, by the remote node, the ECU of the expected sequence number by specifying the expected sequence number in the message (see [0046]-[0047]; one of the PDUs, PDU 426, is missing, lost, or corrupted. The receiving device may send back a SACK message to the transmitter identifying the missing sequence number associated with missing PDU 426 and indicating that the missing PDU 426 was not properly received).
Regarding claim 4, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Takamichi further discloses wherein the mailbox data is processed to be lossless from transmission to reception (see [0010]; TCP is a protocol having a retransmission controlling function in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals, having such a characteristic that packet loss is reduced due to a retransmission control. However, real time properties are degraded, so it is suitable for data communications in which request for real time properties is not high such as file downloading (“mailbox data”); also see [0026]; TCP timeout may be cased due to loss of IP datagrams in a wireless link section... In the case of timeout, a user has to transmit the TCP traffic again; also see [0110] in view of Fig.7: The sequence number of TCP in FIG. 7 … is transferred end-to-end between the communication device 40 and the communication device 31 for an order control in the transport layer), while the streaming data is processed to permit the data loss from transmission to reception (see [0007]; UDP is a protocol in which retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals. Therefore, although packets may be lost, UDP is excellent in real time properties, so it is suitable for traffic requiring real time properties such as voice communications (VOIP: voice over IP), TV phones and visual communications (“streaming data”); also see [0021]; Particularly, as for UDP, retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer, and there is no retransmission means even when packets are lost).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takamichi with Newman and Kondrat so that the mailbox data is processed to be lossless from transmission to reception, while the streaming data is processed to permit the data loss from transmission to reception.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suppress the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network, so as to prevent effective availability of the network bandwidth from being reduced (Takamichi: [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above, including the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU (in Takamichi, see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that TCP traffic corresponds to mailbox data being included in the PDU that is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss; examiner also articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data being included in the PDU that is tolerable of a data loss).
Newman further discloses sending, by the remote node, a message to the ECU including a next expected sequence number (see [0057]; The second device includes a sequence acknowledgement unit configured to maintain a register of sequence numbering for received PDUs and to send a selective acknowledgement message indicating sequence numbers for PDUs that are not properly received by the second device), responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU (see [0055]; the PDUs represent IEEE802.2 (LLC) type 2 frames; LLC Type 2 is a connection-oriented operational mode. Sequence numbering ensures that the frames received are guaranteed to be in the order they have been sent; Logical Link Control (LLC) protocol type 2 header may be added).
In addition, Kondrat further discloses the sequence number of the PDU matching the expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 15-19; sequence number 500 is greater than or equal to the next expected sequence number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi to send, by the remote node, a message to the ECU including a next expected sequence number, responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 7, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above, including the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU (in Takamichi, see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that TCP traffic corresponds to mailbox data being included in the PDU that is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss; examiner also articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data being included in the PDU that is tolerable of a data loss).
Kondrat further discloses discarding, by the remote node, the PDU (see Fig.7:711), responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU (see Col.6: lines 56-60; The different types of frames or streams can be distinguished by MAC addresses, IP addresses, TCP ports or any other piece of information contained within the frame or underlying MAC protocol); and the sequence number of the PDU mismatching the expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 23-24; If the sequence number 500 is less than the next expected sequence number then the frame will be discarded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi to discard, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU; and the sequence number of the PDU mismatching the expected sequence number of the PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 8, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Takamichi further discloses processing, by the remote node, the PDU (see [0030]; In the loss rate calculation circuit, based on the user traffic sequence number k outputted from the packet identifying circuit and the sequence number SQN(k) transferred from a user terminal by using the radio header of a wireless link section, the IP datagram loss rate L(k) in the wireless link section is calculated for each user traffic sequence at a constant cycle Tmax), responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU (see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data included in the PDU).
In addition, Kondrat further discloses processing, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the sequence number of the PDU matching the expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 15-19; if sequence number 500 is greater than or equal to the next expected sequence number then the frame is accepted in step and the sequence number will be incremented to calculate the next expected sequence number in step 707 and stored in the array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi to process, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the sequence number of the PDU matching the expected sequence number of the PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 9, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Takamichi further discloses processing, by the remote node, the PDU (see [0030]; In the loss rate calculation circuit, based on the user traffic sequence number k outputted from the packet identifying circuit and the sequence number SQN(k) transferred from a user terminal by using the radio header of a wireless link section, the IP datagram loss rate L(k) in the wireless link section is calculated for each user traffic sequence at a constant cycle Tmax), responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU (see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data included in the PDU).
In addition, Kondrat further discloses processing, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the sequence number of the PDU being newer than the expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 15-19; if sequence number 500 is greater than or equal to the next expected sequence number then the frame is accepted in step and the sequence number will be incremented to calculate the next expected sequence number in step 707 and stored in the array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi to process, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the sequence number of the PDU being newer than the expected sequence number of the PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 10, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above, including the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU (in Takamichi, see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data included in the PDU).
Newman (modified by Takamichi) does not explicitly disclose discarding, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU; and the sequence number of the PDU being older than the expected sequence number of the PDU.
Kondrat discloses discarding, by the remote node, the PDU (see Fig.7:711), responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU (see Col.6: lines 56-60; The different types of frames or streams can be distinguished by MAC addresses, IP addresses, TCP ports or any other piece of information contained within the frame or underlying MAC protocol); and the sequence number of the PDU being older than the expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 23-24; If the sequence number 500 is less than the next expected sequence number then the frame will be discarded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi to discard, by the remote node, the PDU, responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the streaming data is included in the PDU; and the sequence number of the PDU being older than the expected sequence number of the PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 12, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman further discloses performing, by at least one of the remote node or the ECU, a recovery action for the PDU responsive to: the flag in the header of the PDU indicating that the mailbox data is included in the PDU (see [0055]; the PDUs represent IEEE802.2 (LLC) type 2 frames; LLC Type 2 is a connection-oriented operational mode. Sequence numbering ensures that the frames received are guaranteed to be in the order they have been sent; Logical Link Control (LLC) protocol type 2 header may be added); and a detection of the unexpected reset of the remote node based on the sequence number of the PDU being equal to zero (see [0089]; the second device determines that it has received a control instruction, then at 1080, the second device may reset sequence numbering in accordance with control instruction. For example, the control instruction may indicate that sequence numbers earlier than a particular sequence number will no longer be retransmitted; also see [0038]; first device 110 may indicate to the receiver to perform certain actions, such as reset the sequence numbering window… The receiver may then selectively proceed with delivering buffered frames before the particular sequence number, and any other frames which sequentially follow. This may prevent the first device 110 from having to retransmit several earlier lost or corrupted PDUs, which may have already expired in terms of the application delay tolerance criteria).
Regarding claim 15, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Kondrat further discloses wherein the particular maximum value of the sequence number is 255 (see Col.10: lines 37-43; A frame sequence number 500 is scoped to a conversation between a pair of source and destination endpoints. The width (in bits) of the frame sequence number 500 controls the maximum number of unique frame sequence numbers before the sequence number is wrapped-around; for example, a sequence number field 500 of 8-bits allows for 255 sequence numbers in the sequence number space; also see Col.12: lines 8-22; The increment operation will roll the sequence number back to 1 if the maximum sequence number value is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi so that the particular maximum value of the sequence number is 255.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
As for Claim(s) 17 and 23, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a computer program product configured to manage data between an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and a remote node of a system, the computer program product comprising one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, having instructions (see Newman [0093]) and a remote node (see Fig.11: 1100) for communicating with an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) in a system, the remote node comprising: memories (see Fig.11: 1106), and processors (see Fig.11: 1102) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 17 and 23.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the claims depend on claim 17, but do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 2 and 4 respectively. Therefore, claims 18 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2 and 4 respectively.
Regarding claim 25, the Newman discloses a computer-implemented method for managing data between an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and a remote node of a system, the method comprising:
sending, by the ECU, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) to the remote node (see [0006]; a series of protocol data units (PDUs) are transmitted from a first device via at least a first path of a network to a second device), the mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss (see [0028]; the destination device must make sure the PDUs are delivered to upper layers in a proper order; lost PDUs may be omitted as long as the number of lost PDUs does not exceed the loss tolerance; also see [0055]; Sequence numbering ensures that the frames received are guaranteed to be in the order they have been sent, and no frames are lost); and
receiving, by the ECU, a message from the remote node indicating a mismatch, responsive to a sequence number of the PDU mismatching an expected sequence number of the PDU (see [0033]; first device 110 and the second device 130 maintain a register of sequence numbers associated with the packet stream... the sequence numbers provide an identification that the second device 130 may use to indicate which PDUs are received correctly or which are lost or corrupted. For example, the second device 130 may send a selective acknowledgement (SACK) message to the first device 110, the SACK message identifying the lost or corrupted PDUs; also see [0037]; a SACK message (or NACK message) from the receiver to the sender may be associated with identifying lost PDUs; also see [0046]-[0047] and [0057]), the sequence number of the PDU being: incremented by one for each transmitted frame (see [0074]; receiver has received all sequence numbers from 0 to 4000 except for 3991, 3990, 3985, 3984), and equal to zero only responsive to an unexpected reset of the remote node ([0038]; a signal from the first device 110 may indicate to the receiver to perform certain actions, such as... reset the sequence numbering window; examiner articulates that sequence number of the PDU would be reset to zero, as starting sequence number of the PDU is 0 based on teaching from [0074]).
Although, and as set forth above, Newman discloses sending, by the ECU, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) to the remote node (see [0006]), and also discloses a sequence number field in the PDU (see [0033]), Newman does not explicitly disclose a flag configured to differentiate between (i) mailbox data and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss. Newman also does not explicitly disclose the sequence number of the PDU being configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
However, in an analogous art, Takamichi discloses sending, by the ECU, a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) to the remote node (see [0029]; the present invention is a communication device for an IP network, provided in the IP network using a wireless link as an access means, which receives a radio signal from a user side radio terminal) and a flag configured to differentiate (see [0011]; In the header area of an IP datagram, in the case of IPv4 (Internet Protocol Version 4), a protocol area indicating the encapsulated protocol type of the transport layer or the like is defined. Based on the value of the protocol area, it is possible to identify, for each IP datagram, what kind of protocol data, like a UDP datagram or a TCP segment, is encapsulated on the payload area; also see [0029]-[0030]; The device comprises: a packet type identifying circuit for identifying a user traffic sequence of the IP datagram received, and outputting a traffic type showing the protocol type of the transport layer; In the packet type identifying circuit, a user traffic sequence is identified from the header area of the IP datagram received, and the user traffic sequence number k thereof is outputted, and also the traffic type T(k) showing whether it is UDP traffic or TCP traffic is outputted; examiner articulates that TCP traffic corresponds to mailbox data being included in the PDU that is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss; examiner also articulates that UDP traffic corresponds to streaming data being included in the PDU that is tolerable of a data loss) between (i) mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss (see [0010]; TCP is a protocol having a retransmission controlling function in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals, having such a characteristic that packet loss is reduced due to a retransmission control. However, real time properties are degraded, so it is suitable for data communications in which request for real time properties is not high such as file downloading (“mailbox data”); also see [0026]; TCP timeout may be cased due to loss of IP datagrams in a wireless link section... In the case of timeout, a user has to transmit the TCP traffic again; also see [0110] in view of Fig.7: The sequence number of TCP in FIG. 7 … is transferred end-to-end between the communication device 40 and the communication device 31 for an order control in the transport layer) and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss (see [0007]; UDP is a protocol in which retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer between transmitting and receiving terminals. Therefore, although packets may be lost, UDP is excellent in real time properties, so it is suitable for traffic requiring real time properties such as voice communications (VOIP: voice over IP), TV phones and visual communications (“streaming data”); also see [0021]; Particularly, as for UDP, retransmission control is not performed in the transport layer, and there is no retransmission means even when packets are lost).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takamichi with Newman to send a flag configured to differentiate between (i) mailbox data being included in the PDU, wherein the mailbox data is both required to be received in order and to be intolerable of a data loss and (ii) streaming data being included in the PDU, wherein the streaming data is tolerable of the data loss.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suppress the useless traffic amount transferred to the IP network, so as to prevent effective availability of the network bandwidth from being reduced (Takamichi: [0034]).
Newman (modified by Takamichi) does not explicitly disclose the sequence number of the PDU being configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
However, Kondrat teaches the sequence number of the PDU (see Fig.5:500) mismatching an expected sequence number of the PDU (see Col.12: lines 16-25: the sequence number 500 is extracted from the frame in step 704 and is compared to the next expected sequence number; sequence number 500 is greater/ less than the next expected sequence number), the sequence number of the PDU being: incremented by one for each transmitted frame (see Col.12: lines 8-22; the sequence number will be incremented to calculate the next expected sequence number), and configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one (see Col.10: lines 37-43; A frame sequence number 500 is scoped to a conversation between a pair of source and destination endpoints. The width (in bits) of the frame sequence number 500 controls the maximum number of unique frame sequence numbers before the sequence number is wrapped-around; for example, a sequence number field 500 of 8-bits allows for 255 sequence numbers in the sequence number space; also see Col.12: lines 8-22; The increment operation will roll the sequence number back to 1 if the maximum sequence number value is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondrat with Newman and Takamichi so that the sequence number of the PDU is configured to roll over from a particular maximum value to one.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to aid in the restoration of service after a failure by detecting gaps in the sequence numbers (Kondrat: see Col.12: lines 30-45).
As for Claim(s) 26, the claims list all the same elements of claim 25, but in an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (see Fig.11: 1100) for communicating with a remote node in a system, the ECU comprising: memories (see Fig.11: 1106), and processors (see Fig.11: 1102) form to carry out the steps of claim 25, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 25 applies equally as well to claim 26.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of RYU et al. (hereinafter, RYU, WO 2014005077 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose processing, by the remote node, the mailbox data differently from the streaming data responsive to reviewing the flag in the header of the PDU to determine whether the PDU includes the mailbox data or the streaming data.
However, in an analogous art, RYU discloses processing, by the remote node, the mailbox data differently from the streaming data responsive to reviewing the flag in the header of the PDU to determine whether the PDU includes the mailbox data or the streaming data (see [0146] and [0152] in view of Table 12 on page 41; the reliability flag 1534 may include a bit that may be set to indicate that the data (e.g., media data) in the packet 1500 is loss tolerant. For example, the packets may be dropped without severe quality degradation. The reliability flag 1534 may indicate that the data (e.g., signaling data, service data, programing data, etc.) in the packet 1500 is not loss tolerant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of RYU with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat to process, by the remote node, the mailbox data differently from the streaming data responsive to reviewing the flag in the header of the PDU to determine whether the PDU includes the mailbox data or the streaming data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for greater reliability and/or lower packet loss rates (RYU: [0073]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim depends on claim 17, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of Sabaa et al. (hereinafter, Sabaa, US 6389016 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above, including wherein in a mailbox mode automatically applied to the mailbox data by the remote node responsive to the flag in the header of the PDU (in Newman, see [0146] and [0152] in view of Table 12 on page 41; the reliability flag 1534 may include a bit that may be set to indicate that the data (e.g., media data) in the packet 1500 is loss tolerant. For example, the packets may be dropped without severe quality degradation. The reliability flag 1534 may indicate that the data (e.g., signaling data, service data, programing data, etc.) in the packet 1500 is not loss tolerant).
Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose PDUs are only accepted by the remote node in an intended order such that subsequent PDUs are discarded until an expected PDU is received and acknowledged.
However, Sabaa discloses PDUs are only accepted by the remote node in an intended order such that subsequent PDUs are discarded until an expected PDU is received and acknowledged (see Col.9: line 50 – Col.10: line 2; data packet 100 having sequence number 8 of Group 0 is lost in this scenario. Once the next packet 102 arrives, having a sequence number of 9, the receiver 72 detects an out-of-sequence error as the sequence number of the received packet 102 does not match the expected sequence number of 8; the receiver 72 discards all further packets received for group 0 until the one expected is received. Once the sender 70 receives the negative acknowledgment 104, it knows at that point that all sequence numbers up to 7 have been correctly received. The receiver then retransmits the packet 100 with sequence number 8, immediately followed by all of the next and higher-numbered packets in the group. Once these are received, the receiver 72 indicates the correct reception of the entire group by sending a positive acknowledgment 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sabaa with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat so that PDUs are only accepted by the remote node in an intended order such that subsequent PDUs are discarded until an expected PDU is received and acknowledged.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to save considerable bandwidth (Sabaa: Col.10: line 10).
As for Claim 21, the claim depends on claim 17, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of Jung (US 20010052072 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above, including unexpected reset of the remote node based on the sequence number being equal to zero (in Newman, see [0038]; a signal from the first device 110 may indicate to the receiver to perform certain actions, such as... reset the sequence numbering window; examiner articulates that sequence number of the PDU would be reset to zero, as starting sequence number of the PDU is 0 based on teaching from [0074]).
Newman (modified by Takamichi Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose at least one visually and audibly indicating, by at least one of the remote node or ECU, the unexpected reset of the remote node.
Jung discloses at least one visually and audibly indicating, by at least one of the remote node or the ECU, the unexpected reset of the remote node (see [0043]; Once a data recovery procedure is initiated, the sequence number processor 29 resets the sequence number back to its initial value. The sequence number processor 29 may then cause a sequence number reset message to be transmitted (via in-band or out-band signaling) indicating that the sequence number will restart (“visually indicating unexpected reset”); also see [0018]; also see claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Jung with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat to at least one visually and audibly indicate, by at least one of the remote node or the ECU, the unexpected reset of the remote node based on the sequence number being equal to zero.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow the transmitting and receiving sides to become resynchronized once again (Jung: see [0043]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of LE et al. (hereinafter, LE, US 20160308765 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose sending, by the ECU, a new PDU to the remote node; resending, by the ECU, the new PDU after a timeout, responsive to the PDU including the mailbox data; and an absence of the ECU from receiving an acknowledgement of a receipt of the new PDU.
LE discloses method further comprising:
sending, by the ECU, a new PDU to the remote node (see [0078] and [0082]; forwarder node 802 sends a transmitted message M1 812, which is a copy of the received message M1 810, to the destination node 804, but the transmission fails);
resending, by the ECU, the new PDU after a timeout, responsive to the PDU including the mailbox data (see [0025] and [0037]; packet type identifier 204 in one example identifies if the received data packet is a data packet upon which special retransmission processing is to be performed); and an absence of the ECU from receiving an acknowledgement of a receipt of the new PDU (see[0082]; controller 808 monitors information sent from all forwarder nodes to determine if a receipt acknowledgement has been sent by the destination node 804. If no receipt acknowledgment has been sent by the destination node 804 over any transmission path, the controller determines that an ACK timeout occurs. Upon determining that an ACK timeout occurs, the controller proceeds to recreate the message M1 and retransmits it as retransmitted message M1 816 to the destination node 804).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of LE with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat to send, by the ECU, a new PDU to the remote node; and to resend, by the ECU, the new PDU after a timeout, responsive to the PDU including the mailbox data; and an absence of the ECU from receiving an acknowledgement of a receipt of the new PDU.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow quicker loss recovery and thus better performance (LE: see [0021]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of Hooper et al. (hereinafter, Hooper, US 20040202164 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose wherein the PDU is sent in a multicast message to a plurality of remote nodes.
Hooper discloses wherein the PDU is sent in a multicast message to a plurality of remote nodes (see [0013]; downstream device generates PDUs carrying the multicast data and transmits the generated PDUs via the appropriate egress interfaces (e.g., links to remote network devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hooper with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat so that the PDU is sent in a multicast message to a plurality of remote nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce traffic between devices, and to conserve resources of device by offloading duties from device (Hooper: see [0013]).
Claim(s) 16, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman et al. (hereinafter, Newman, US 20140254351 A1) in view of Takamichi (US 20060198376 A1) in view of Kondrat et al. (hereinafter, Kondrat, US 7706255 B1) in view of Non-Patent Literature to McLean (“Automotive, In-Cabin Experience: Personalized Digitized, Immersive, Dec. 8, 2021”).
Regarding claim 16, Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as set forth above. Newman (modified by Takamichi and Kondrat) does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote node is configured to communicate with the ECU using an Ethernet to the Edge Bus (E2B) protocol.
McLean discloses wherein the remote node is configured to communicate with the ECU using an Ethernet to the Edge Bus (E2B) protocol (see “The Future Car: Connecting Your World” section on the last page; Ethernet-to-the-Edge Bus (E2B) uses the new automotive Ethernet 10BASE-T1S technology to enable Ethernet-to-edge connectivity for sensors and actuators).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McLean with Newman, Takamichi and Kondrat so the remote node is configured to communicate with the ECU using an Ethernet to the Edge Bus (E2B) protocol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the number of ECU’s, and to support updates rolling out new and enhanced features (McLean: see “The Future Car: Connecting Your World” section on the last page).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, the claims depend on claims 17 and 23 respectively, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 16. Therefore, claims 22 and 24 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 16.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PERSSON et al. (US 20150117460 A1) discloses IP header classification is useful for identifying traffic targeting.
Dolganow et al. (US 8885644 B2) teaches compressed IP flow recognition for in-line, integrated mobile DPI.
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 SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights