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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11425013.
As claims 1 and 7, Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 1he claimed patent such as claims 1, 15 and 18 discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and simultaneously starting a timer when receiving third edge and terminating timer when receiving four edge. However, the claimed application discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and omit some elements from the claims such as timer in order to broaden the claims. Therefore, the applicant is attempting to broaden the parent application's claims by eliminating some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application at bar would unjustly extend applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period of the patent while, at the same time, granting broader protection to the application.
As claims 2 and 8, these claims are similar as claims 5 and 18 of patent.
As claims 3 and 9, these claims are similar as claims 6 and 19 of patent.
As claims 4 and 10, these claims are similar as claims 6 and 19 of patent.
As claims 5 and 11, these claims are similar as claims 7 and 20 of patent.
As claims 6 and 12, these claims are similar as claims 6 and 21 of patent.
As claim 13, Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed patent such as claims 12 and 23 discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by receiving first edge and simultaneously start a timer and receiving second edge after a time period and transmitting third edge and fourth edge after expiring timer. However, the claimed application discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and adding some elements from the claims such as transceivers. Therefore, the applicant is attempting to expand the parent application's claims by adding some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application at bar would unjustly extend applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period of the patent while, at the same time, granting broader protection to the application.
As claim 14, this claim is similar as claims 6 and 19 of patent.
As claim 15, this claim is similar as claim 8 of patent.
As claim 16, this claim is similar as claim 2 of patent.
As claim 17, this claim is similar as claim 3 of patent.
As claim 18, this claim is similar as claim 4 of patent.
As claim 19, this claim is similar as claim 5 of patent.
As claim 20, this claim is similar as claim 4 of patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11743159.
As claims 1 and 7, Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed patent such as claims 1, 12 and 16 discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and simultaneously starting a timer when receiving third edge and terminating timer when receiving four edge. However, the claimed application discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and omit some elements from the claims such as timer in order to broaden the claims. Therefore, the applicant is attempting to broaden the parent application's claims by eliminating some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application at bar would unjustly extend applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period of the patent while, at the same time, granting broader protection to the application.
As claims 2 and 8, these claims are similar as claim 7 of patent.
As claims 3 and 9, these claims are similar as claim 8 of patent.
As claims 4 and 10, these claims are similar as claim 8 of patent.
As claims 5 and 11, these claims are similar as claim 2 of patent.
As claims 6 and 12, these claims are similar as claim 6 of patent.
As claim 13, Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed patent such as claims 1, 12 and 16 discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by receiving first edge and simultaneously start a timer and receiving second edge after a time period and transmitting third edge and fourth edge after expiring timer. However, the claimed application discloses a method and system for determining the shortest between the forward delay and backward delay between the nodes via a network by sending first and second edge which are separated by total delay, from first node to second node and receiving at first node third and fourth edge from second node and adding some elements from the claims such as transceivers. Therefore, the applicant is attempting to expand the parent application's claims by adding some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application at bar would unjustly extend applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period of the patent while, at the same time, granting broader protection to the application.
As claim 14, this claim is similar as claim 2 of patent.
As claim 15, this claim is similar as claim 3 of patent.
As claim 16, this claim is similar as claim 4 of patent.
As claim 17, this claim is similar as claim 5 of patent.
As claim 18, this claim is similar as claim 6 of patent.
As claim 19, this claim is similar as claim 7 of patent.
As claim 20, this claim is similar as claim 8 of patent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fourcand [US 2012/0099854].
As claims 1 and 7, Fourcand discloses a system for determining a path delay of an optical link between transceivers, the system comprising: an optical interface in communication with a first path and a second path of the optical link between a first transceiver and a second transceiver [Fig 1, optical network which includes first “101” and second “102” optical transceiver for sending packets via first path “forward” and receiving packets via second path “backward”]; and a processing unit connected to the optical interface and configured to determine an indication of a shorter path delay of the first path and the second path based upon [Fig, Ref 101 includes a processor for determining a shortest of the forward and backward by determine a delay of the first and second, Par. 0028]; transmission, from the first transceiver via the first path, of a first edge and a second edge separated by a total optical link delay [Par. 0032, 0038 discloses a101 send a first symbol “first edge” and last symbol “second edge” which separated by a total delay]; receipt, at the first transceiver via the second path, of a third edge associated with transmission through the optical link [Par. 0024 discloses 101 receives third symbol “loopback of first symbol” with a retransmission time at 102]; and receipt, at the first transceiver via the second path, of a fourth edge associated with optical signal transmission through the optical link after the total optical link delay [Par. 0024 discloses 101 receives fourth symbol “loopback of last symbol” with a retransmission time at 102 after the total link delay].
As claims 3 and 9, Fourcand discloses receive, at the first transceiver, the total optical link delay from the second transceiver [Par. 0024 discloses second node send D2 to the first node].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourcand in view of Searcy [US 2018/0013490].
As claims 2 and 8, Fourcand fails to disclose what Searcy discloses calculate a total link length based upon the total optical link delay and a speed of light at an effective refractive index associated with the optical link [Par. 0035].
Since, a method and system for calculating a total link length based upon the total optical link delay and a speed of light at an effective refractive index associated with the optical link is well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the teaching of Searcy into the teaching of Fourcand. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
As claims 6 and 12, Fourcand fails to disclose what Searcy discloses determine a path length based on the path delay [Par. 0035].
Since, a method and system for determining a path length based on the path delay is well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the teaching of Searcy into the teaching of Fourcand. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourcand in view of Kurobe [US 5896402].
As claims 4 and 10, Fourcand fails to disclose what Kubore discloses set a wait time at the first transceiver equal to the total optical link delay [Col. 2:8-34, source set waiting for retransmitting is round trip delay].
Since, a method and system for setting a waiting time for echo packet with delay time is well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the teaching of Kurobe into the teaching of Fourcand. The motivation would have been to prevent data loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 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.
As claims 5 and 11, the prior arts in the record fail to disclose the third edge is associated with an optical signal transmission delayed by a response time after the receipt of the second edge, and wherein the processing unit is configured to subtract the response time from an elapsed time of a first timer to determine the path delay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mani [US 2013/0077964] discloses a method and system for synchronizing optical network.
Ruffini [US 2017/0180070] discloses a method and system for determining propagation delay.
Bottari [US 2015/0104167] discloses a method and system for synchronizing optical network.
Suzuki [US 2017/0353372] discloses a method and system for determining RTD.
Couillard [US 7023816] discloses a method and system for synchronizing a network.
Nomura [US 2006/0280133] discloses a method and system for determining RTD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414