Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
2. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 02/27/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 1,11, 13, and 14 are acknowledged. Claims 1-14 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Claim objections regarding claims 1, 11, 13, and 14, for minor informalities, are withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 14, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Explanation for non-persuasiveness:
5. Applicant argues/remarks that Yushiya, in view of Madhyastha and Roberts fail to teach or suggest a configuration of presently amended claim 1, 11, 13, and 14. As such, amended claim 1, in part and underlined amended subject matter, reads:
“…a control unit configured to, in a case where the first communication interface has become unable to perform sending during sending of the first image packet or the second image packet from the first communication interface, based on detection of the absence of transmission acknowledgement or a timeout to a transmission start time, and
based on determination that the predetermined information included in the image packet has not been successfully communicated,
cause a communication packet including at least the predetermined information to be sent by a second communication interface included in the plurality of communication interface…”.
In the office action, dated 12/30/2025, a limitation of a “predetermined information included in the first image packet”, as claimed in claim 1, is mapped according prior art reference Yushiya; wherein Yushiya, in [0035], teaches header information included in a packet, wherein different elements of the header may comply to be viewed as predetermined information.
Further, the prior art reference by Roberts is provided for teaching the limitation of “detection of an absence of transmission acknowledgement or a timeout to a transmission start time” (see text in bold above for further context of the limitation). Roberts teaches a mechanism to detect and recover from a failure in a network of data/packet transmission; wherein link failures may be detected for several reasons. I2C-timout is a well known method of determining that a packet failed to transmit due to an issue to communicate a start condition for data/packet transmission.
In figures 10-13 teach different points of failure that may occur in the transmission of a data packet. A such, “failure between ingress and egress line card” occurs at the router level. Further, data may also not send from one router to another due to “external failures”.
In column 14 (lines 8-30), with regards to Fig. 10, Roberts teaches that OPM 304b of ingress line card 202b receives packet 800, it ascertains from RET field 810 that the packet 800 is a returned packet, thereby determining that a previous routing path had failed to successfully send the packet.
As stated above, Yushiya, in [0035], teaches header information included in a packet, wherein different elements of the header may comply to be viewed as predetermined information. As such, similarly, Roberts teaches fields of data that accompany the packet 800 in the process of its transmission. As such the RET field 810 (which is predetermined and resettable in the process of the packet’s transmission can be related to the predetermined information that is part of the header information included in a packet (as taught by Yushiya)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yushiya (US 2021/0385429 A1) in view of Madhyastha et al. (US 2018/0307474
A1; Further referred to as Madhyastha) and further view of Roberts (US 7,428,209 B1).
8. Regarding claim 1, a communication control apparatus (…Yushiya teaches an image
acquisition apparatus, in [0020], Fig. 1…) comprising:
a generation unit configured to generate an image packet (…wherein [0027] teaches
camera adapters 120 convert captured image data obtained by image capturing
performed by an associated camera 112 into a packet and transmit the packet.…);
a receiving unit configured to receive an image packet (…[0035] teaches reception processing unit 332 which reads out a packet temporarily stored by a reception data
storing unit 331 and performs reception processing on the packet based on header
information about the packet; wherein units 331 and 332 are part of a camera adapter, as
depicted in Fig. 3. Hence, a receiving unit may be camera adapter 120e…);
a first sending unit configured to cause a first image packet received by the receiving
unit to be sent by a first communication interface included in a plurality of communication
interfaces (…wherein [0036] teaches a transmission processing unit 333 receives a packet
transmitted from an upstream adjacent camera adapter and subjected to reception
processing by the reception processing unit 332 , and performs processing required for
transmitting the packet. Thus, a first sending unit may be a camera adapter of the
network as depicted in Fig. 1 (e.g. camera adapter 120f). Further, [0030] teaches ports 322
and 323 which may be viewed as a plurality of communication interfaces…);
a second sending unit configured to cause a second image packet generated by the
generation unit to be sent by the first communication interface at timing that is based on
reception of predetermined information included in the first image packet (…wherein a second
sending unit may be a camera adapter 120e which in addition to receiving a packet
transmitted from an upstream adjacent camera adapter a first packet also receives
transmission data generated by a data generation unit 321 from image data captured by
an associated camera. As such, a camera adapter generates image packets of an
associated camera (second image packet) and also receives and transmits image
packets from an adjacent camera adapter (first image packet).
Further, [0035] teaches header information included in a packet, where different
elements of the header may comply to being predetermined. For example, [0042] teaches
that an initial value which is in common between all of the cascade-connected camera
adapters 120 is set to a “Time to Live” field of the header format (Fig. 4). Or, [0043]
teaches sequential transmission camera adapter determines timing at which to start transmission of a sequential transmission packet generated from image data captured by
the associated camera, based on the value of bit 18 of the “Flags” field included in the
header of a packet received from an upstream adjacent camera adapter…).
Though Yushiya, in [0033], teaches that the transmission and reception processing unit
330 performs processing of packets which the camera adapter 120 transmits and receives,
Yushiya does not further teach:
a control unit configured to, in a case where the first communication interface has
become unable to perform sending during sending of the first image packet or the second image
packet from the first communication interface, cause a communication packet including at least
the predetermined information to be sent by a second communication interface included in the
plurality of communication interfaces (…however, Madhyastha, in [0017], teaches a stacking
system 112, that may be coupled to an uplink (110) and downlink device (114) devices
wherein link aggregation may be used to interconnect two devices with two or more links
between them to provide redundancy when one of the links fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a stacking system as taught by
Madhyastha could have been employed as part of the transmission and reception
processing of Yushiya’s teaching, thus to provide a mechanism to provide redundancy in
a case where one communication link fails a secondary link can still transmit or receive
data from an uplink or downlink device…).
Madhyastha does not further specify the above limited stacking system of link
aggregation based on
detection of an absence of transmission acknowledgment or a timeout to a transmission
start time (…Roberts, in columns 17-18 with regards to Fig. 13, discusses, under “Failure
Egress Line Card”, a mechanism to detect and recover from a failure in a network of
data/packet transmission.
In further detail, as a packet 800, at a switching-fabric-module (SFM) 408c,
received from an ingress line card 202b, is further being routed to an egress line card
202d, the unit 408c may detect a link failure.
It is well known in the art that a way that this may be done is through I2C-timeout;
wherein such a condition, in part, is due to a failure to transmit due to an issue to
communicate a start condition for data/packet transmission.
Eventually, failed to send packet 800 is sent back to the ingress card 202b, as a
previously failed packet to route and an alternate route to the previous egress line 202d
is determined. Thus, as shown in Fig. 13, an alternate switching fabric (206b) and egress
line card 202c is used to route through a router 102…), and
based on determination that the predetermined information included in the image packet has not been successfully communicated (…In column 14 (lines 8-30), with regards to Fig. 10, Roberts teaches that OPM 304b of ingress line card 202b receives packet 800, it ascertains from RET field 810 that the packet 800 is a returned packet, thereby determining that a previous routing path had failed to successfully send the packet.
As stated above, Yushiya, in [0035], teaches header information included in a packet, wherein different elements of the header may comply to be viewed as predetermined information. As such, similarly, Roberts teaches fields of data that accompany the packet 800 in the process of its transmission. As such the RET field 810 (which is predetermined and resettable in the process of the packet’s transmission can be related to the predetermined information that is part of the header information included in a packet (as taught by Yushiya)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a router and its corresponding line
cards (communication interfaces), as taught by Roberts, could have been implemented in
the teaching of Madhyastha’s stacking system 112 so to provide alternate routing of data
packets due to a failure of an egress line card (communication interface) within a router,
through a secondary egress line, without a redundant backup of a secondary router…).
9. Regarding claim 2, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the second sending unit causes the second image packet including the predetermined
information to be sent by the first communication interface (…wherein Yushiya, in [0036],
teaches that a transmission data storing unit 334 reads out a stored packet based on a
readout instruction received from the transmission processing unit 333 and sends the
packet to the port 323 for transmission…).
10. Regarding claim 3, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 2 (see claim 2 above) wherein
the first sending unit causes the first image packet obtained by deleting the
predetermined information from the first image packet including the predetermined information
to be sent by the first communication interface (…Yushiya, in [0042], teaches the “Time to
Live” field of the header format wherein the value of the field is decremented by 1 each
time a packet of the header passes through a sequential transmission camera adapter.
Thus, it may be said that an initial value of the predetermined information has been
deleted and rewritten by the process of decrementing its value by 1…).
11. Regarding claim 4, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the predetermined information is included in a last image packet included in a packet
group including one or more image packets which are communicated as a series of image
packets (…wherein Yushiya, in [0044], teaches the “Flags” field (of the header of Fig. 4)
which is used as a last fragment flag, indicating if a subsequent fragmented packet
exists or not…).
12. Regarding claim 5, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 4 (see claim 4 above), wherein
the predetermined information is last packet information indicating that an image packet
including the predetermined information is the last image packet (…wherein Yushiya, in
[0044], teaches the “Flags” field (of the header of Fig. 4) which is used as a last fragment
flag, indicating if a subsequent fragmented packet exists or not. As such, a “0” indicates
additional fragmented packets exist, and a “1” is indicative of a last packet…).
13. Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1.
14. Regarding claim 12, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
a communication system comprising
a plurality of communication apparatuses each corresponding to the communication
apparatus according to claim 11 (see claim 11 above), the plurality of communication
apparatuses being connected in daisy chain (…wherein Yushiya, in [0020], teaches camera
adapters 120a-120f are cascaded in a daisy chain connection…).
15. Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1.
16. Regarding claim 14, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer (…wherein Yushiya in
[0110-0111], teaches ROM 812 and additional components of a computer system which
may perform the execution of computer programs…), cause the computer to perform a
communication control method comprising:
generating an image packet (…Yushiya, in [0022], teaches camera adapter 112
which, among other things, generates image packets from image data captured by an
associated camera …);
receiving an image packet (…wherein Yushiya, in [0022], teaches the camera
adapter 112 which performs reception processing on image packets…);
causing a received first image packet to be sent by a first communication interface
included in a plurality of communication interfaces (…wherein Yushiya, in [0022], teaches the
reception and transmission of image packets. [0030] further teaches ports 322 and 323
for the reception and transmission of image packets between camera adapters (wherein
Fig. 1 a plurality of communication interfaces (which are part of the camera adapters)…);
causing a generated second image packet to be sent by the first communication
interface at timing that is based on reception of predetermined information included in the first
image packet (…wherein, as taught in [0036], transmission processing unit 333 receives a
packet transmitted from an upstream adjacent camera adapter and subjected to
reception processing by the reception processing unit 332 , and performs processing
required for transmitting the packet (as such a first image packet); [0037] teaches the
detection image capturing of an associated camera (so to generate image packets
(second image packet) and the transmission processing unit 333 at a determined time
instructs the transmission data storing unit 334 to start reading out a packet generated
from image data captured by the associated camera 112 and when a count value
obtained by starting counting based on the vertical synchronization signal has reached a
first setting value, transmission of a packet generated from image data captured by the
associated camera 112 is started…).
Yushiya does not further teach a case wherein the first communication interface has
become unable to perform sending during sending of the first image packet or the second image
packet from the first communication interface, causing a communication packet including at
least the predetermined information to be sent by a second communication interface included in
the plurality of communication interfaces (…however, Madhyastha, in [0017], teaches a
stacking system 112, that may be coupled to an uplink (110) and downlink device (114)
devices wherein link aggregation may be used to interconnect two devices with two or
more links between them to provide redundancy when one of the links fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a backup or redundant mechanism of
continued package transmission can be employed as taught by Madhyastha, on a per-
port basis of the ports taught by Yushiya, so in a case of a communication path failure a
backup route can still be employed for effective data transmission…).
Madhyastha does not further specify the above limited stacking system of link
aggregation based on
detection of an absence of transmission acknowledgment or a timeout to a transmission
start time (…Roberts, in columns 17-18 with regards to Fig. 13, discusses, under “Failure
Egress Line Card”, a mechanism to detect and recover from a failure in a network of
data/packet transmission.
In further detail, as a packet 800, at a switching-fabric-module (SFM) 408c,
received from an ingress line card 202b, is further being routed to an egress line card
202d, the unit 408c may detect a link failure.
It is well known in the art that a way that this may be done is through I2C-timeout;
wherein such a condition, in part, is due to a failure to transmit due to an issue to
communicate a start condition for data/packet transmission.
Eventually, failed to send packet 800 is sent back to the ingress card 202b, as a
previously failed packet to route and an alternate route to the previous egress line 202d
is determined. Thus, as shown in Fig. 13, an alternate switching fabric (206b) and egress
line card 202c is used to route through a router 102…), and
based on determination that the predetermined information included in the image packet has not been successfully communicated (…In column 14 (lines 8-30), with regards to Fig. 10, Roberts teaches that OPM 304b of ingress line card 202b receives packet 800, it ascertains from RET field 810 that the packet 800 is a returned packet, thereby determining that a previous routing path had failed to successfully send the packet.
As stated above, Yushiya, in [0035], teaches header information included in a packet, wherein different elements of the header may comply to be viewed as predetermined information. As such, similarly, Roberts teaches fields of data that accompany the packet 800 in the process of its transmission. As such the RET field 810 (which is predetermined and resettable in the process of the packet’s transmission can be related to the predetermined information that is part of the header information included in a packet (as taught by Yushiya)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a router and its corresponding line
cards (communication interfaces), as taught by Roberts, could have been implemented in
the teaching of Madhyastha’s stacking system 112 so to provide alternate routing of data
packets due to a failure of an egress line card (communication interface) within a router,
through a secondary egress line, without a redundant backup of a secondary router…).
17. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushiya (US
2021/0385429 A1) in view of Madhyastha et al. (US 2018/0307474 A1; further referred to as Madhyastha) and Roberts (US 7,428,209 B1) and further view of Yushiya et al.
(US 2019/0228565 A1; further referred to as Yushiya I).
18. Regarding claim 6, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
The combined reference does not further teach wherein in a case where a specific
condition is satisfied even before reception of the predetermined information, the second
sending unit causes sending of the second image packet to be started.
However, Yushiya I teaches a similar image processing system of daisy-chained
network cameras wherein in a case where a specific condition is satisfied even before reception
of the predetermined information, the second sending unit causes sending of the second image
packet to be started (…wherein, Yushiya I, in [0097] (with reference to Fig. 6), teaches a
transmission processing unit 424 determines whether an image data from a previous
stage has been received within a predetermined amount of time (S603). If not, unit 431
generates the background image that could not be received. In this scenario, a locally
generated image is viewed as the second image packet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, that conditions of timing can be set, thus to
maintain a process of continues image flow, within a chain of image generating devices,
even if there arose a particular reason for a plausible interruption of data flow…).
19. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushiya (US
2021/0385429 A1) in view of Madhyastha et al. (US 2018/0307474 A1; further referred
to as Madhyastha) and Roberts (US 7,428,209 B1) and further view of Yano et al. (US
2020/0322591 A1; further referred to as Yano).
20. Regarding claim 7, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
The combined reference does not further teach wherein the control unit determined that
even a sending inability state of the first communication interface having occurred after
completion of inputting of an image packet to the first communication interface is a sending
inability state having occurred during sending of the image packet, as long as before a specific
time passes after the completion of inputting (…however, Yano, in [0341], teaches the
determination whether data transmission may be performed (thus determining a
boundary for the ability or disability to transmit image data), based on an amount of data
exceeding a threshold value of an output data amount specified in advance. As such, it
may be said that the flow of data, within time, directly corresponds to the amount of data
that is transmitted. Further, as depicted in Fig. 30 at step (S06705), the systems obtains
policy at time when output data amount is exceeded and consequently selects a process
determine what action to perform on the data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a threshold amount for data amount
can be set, relative to the time of data amount that is transmitted, so to further determine
the synchronization of data transmission in accordance with a corresponding image
processing method…).
21. Regarding claim 8, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
each of the first sending unit and the second sending unit inputs an image packet to the
first communication interface, thus causing the image packet to be sent from the first
communication interface (…wherein Yushiya, in [0032], teaches ports 322 and 323 whereby camera adapters in cascade connection transmit packets which are both generated at a
local camera adapter as well as transferred from a previous camera adapter…).
However, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts doesn’t further
teach wherein,
in a case where the first communication interface has become unable to perform
sending during sending of the first image packet or the second image packet, the control unit
inputs, to the second communication interface, image packets beginning with an image packet
following an image packet already input to the first communication interface, thus causing the
communication packet to be sent (…however, Yano, in [0341], teaches the determination
whether data transmission may be performed (thus determining a boundary for the
ability or disability to transmit image data), based on an amount of data exceeding a
threshold value of an output data amount specified in advance. As such, it may be said
that the flow of data, within time, directly corresponds to the amount of data that is
transmitted. Thus, as depicted further, in Fig. 30, at step (S06705) the systems obtains
policy at time when output data amount is exceeded and consequently selects a process
determine what action to perform on the data.
Further, Madhyastha, in [0017], teaches a stacking system 112, that may be
coupled to an uplink (110) and downlink device (114) devices wherein link aggregation
may be used to interconnect two devices with two or more links between them to provide
redundancy when one of the links fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a backup or redundant mechanism of
continued package transmission can be employed as taught by Madhyastha wherein as
taught by Yano, the determination can be made to set a condition/policy whereby image
packets may be sent without missing data and effectively process and output data as
purposed for the system…).
22. Regarding claim 9, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and further view of Roberts teaches
the communication control apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein,
in a case where the first communication interface has become unable to perform
sending during sending of the second image packet, the control causes a packet including the
predetermined information and not including image data to be sent as the communication
packet (…wherein Yushiya, in [0032], teaches ports 322 and 323 whereby camera
adapters in cascade connection transmit packets which are both generated at a local
camera adapter as well as transferred from a previous camera adapter.
Further, Yano, in [0341], teaches the determination whether data transmission
may be performed (thus determining a boundary for the ability or disability to transmit
image data), based on an amount of data exceeding a threshold value of an output data
amount specified in advance. As such, it may be said that the flow of data, within time,
directly corresponds to the amount of data that is transmitted. Thus, as depicted further,
in Fig. 30, at step (S06705) the systems obtains policy at time when output data amount
is exceeded and consequently selects a process determine what action to perform on the
data. As such, different processes can be selected so to transmit some part of the image
packet. Therein it is evident that additional or different determination can be set as to
what part of the data to transmit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that,
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that various determinations can
be made as to what element of an image packet to send based on a set condition, thus to
coordinate the synchronization of image information for image processing…).
23. Regarding claim 10, Yushiya in view of Madhyastha and Roberts and further view of
Yano teaches the communication control apparatus according to claim 9 (see claim 9 above),
wherein
the control unit causes a packet including the predetermined information and having a
minimum size in the second communication interface to be sent as the communication packet
(…wherein Yushiya, in [0032], teaches ports 322 and 323 whereby camera adapters in
cascade connection transmit packets which are both generated at a local camera adapter
as well as transferred from a previous camera adapter; El further teaches, in [0053], a
plurality of synchronization signal output apparatuses 111 connected to a time server
130a and 130b, via a network 120 (wherein the network 120 may be a daisy chained
ethernet network), connected by at least two physical links 113a and 113b. In addition,
Yano, as depicted in Fig. 30, teaches the determination of a condition, in step S06704,
whereby further transmission processes can be obtained and further selected. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that,
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that various determinations can
be made as to what element of an image packet to send based on a set condition, thus to
coordinate the synchronization of image information for image processing…).
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639