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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/19/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim 20 is rejected.
Claims 1-19 are allowable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) includes a “cost determiner” and “destination selector,” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification as filed reveals the following:
The apparatus further includes a packet forwarder configured to receive an indication of the selected one of the plurality of destination devices from the destination selector and forward the data packet to the selected one of the plurality of destination devices. One or both of the cost determiner and the destination selector may be implemented using a processor operatively coupled to a memory, the memory storing program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to implement one or both of the cost determiner and the destination selector. One or both of the cost determiner and the destination selector may be implemented using dedicated data processing hardware, (see para 0011 & claims 18-19).
Therefore, Examiner concludes that the claimed “cost determiner” and “destination selector,” are not indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dmitri Krioukov et al (US 20180248783 A1) in view of Gyeongil Kweon et al (US 20220159423 A1).
For Claim 20, Krioukov discloses a method for assigning an address to a node in a network (Krioukov teaches, in ¶ 0003, lines 1-3, network architectures and methods that include an addressing scheme based on geographic position of network nodes), the method comprising: determining a first parameter representing a first geodesic passing through the node (Krioukov teaches, in ¶ 0005, lines 1-3, that a latitude and longitude of a location of the node and centrality of the location of the node are determined); determining a second parameter representing a second geodesic passing through the node (Krioukov teaches, in ¶ 0005, lines 1-5, that a latitude and longitude of a location of the node and centrality of the location of the node are determined); assigning the address so as to include the first parameter and the second parameter (Krioukov teaches, in ¶ 0005, lines 5-7, that A network address is generated based on the latitude, longitude, and centrality of the location of the node and assigned to the node).
Krioukov fails to expressly teach an intersection of an equatorial plane with a first geodesic [being represented by a parameter].
However, Kweon, in analogous art, discloses an intersection of an equatorial plane with a first geodesic [being represented by a parameter] (Kweon shows, in FIG. 19, that intersection of Equator Lo with the meridian M(λ) is represented by the parameter U(λ)).
Kweon also teaches, in in ¶ 0258, that If a tangent plane (2204) is drawn to the Earth ellipsoid (2201) at the ellipsoidal point (2203), then the normal (2202) passes vertically through the tangent plane (2204). The angle φ with which the normal (2202) meets the Equatorial plane is the geodetic latitude.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Krioukov with the geodetic coordinate system taught in Kweon. The motivation is to provide a useful method for expressing a geographic location as a combination of latitude, longitude, and altitude [Kweon: ¶ 0191].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-19 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations:
“determining a respective cost or utility associated with forwarding the data packet to said one of the plurality of destination devices, said one of the plurality of destination devices having a location defined by: a first parameter a1 representing location of an intersection of an equatorial plane with a first geodesic passing through said one of the plurality of destination devices; and a second parameter #1 representing location of an intersection of the equatorial plane with a second geodesic passing through said one of the plurality of destination devices, said further destination having a location, wherein determining the cost or utility comprises computing a distance metric from said one of the plurality of destination devices to the further destination using the location of said one of the plurality of destination devices and the location of said further destination; selecting one of the plurality of destination devices based at least in part on the determined costs or utilities,” as recited in various permutations in independent claims 1, and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Jones et al (US 20220070610 A1) is pertinent to systems and methods for location-based services, especially a space-network model binding Internet Protocol addresses and geographical locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412