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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first network endpoint that includes both a transport layer that implements the invention and also includes a receiver application must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The drawings do not show a transport layer that performs the claimed invention (layer 302) and a receiver application (app 306) being at the same endpoint as claimed. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the delivery of data by a transport layer to a receiver application must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The following limitations from the independent claims do not appear in the disclosure:
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
receiving, by a transport layer of a first network endpoint, configuration information from a sender application running on a second network endpoint, the configuration information including a data loss threshold indicating an amount of data loss that may be tolerated for a data transfer from the sender application to a receiver application running on the first network endpoint;
Claim 8 features the following limitation:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon program code executable a transport layer of a first network endpoint, the program code causing the transport layer to: receive configuration information from a sender application running on a second network endpoint, the configuration information including a data loss threshold indicating an amount of data loss that may be tolerated for a data transfer from the sender application to a receiver application running on the first network endpoint
Claim 15 features the following limitation:
A network endpoint comprising: a transport layer; a receiver application;
The applicant did not disclose, in their specification, a first network endpoint that runs both the claimed transport layer and the receiver application. As disclosed in paragraphs 24-26, and shown in Figure 3, the sender and receiver applications are PROPH-AWARE Client apps 306 on clients 104, whereas the claimed transport layer is clearly embodied as PROPH Transport Layer 302 and server 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 feature the following limitation:
delivering, by the transport layer, data corresponding to the data transfer to the receiver application based on the one or more network packets in a manner that respects the data loss threshold.
The applicant’s disclosure fails to define “data corresponding to the data transfer” in a way that meets the written description requirement.
Paragraph 19 states the following:
[0019] Generally speaking, PROPH transport layer 302 provides partial reliability for data (e.g., gradient information) that is sent from each client 104 to parameter server 102, in accordance with a data loss threshold defined by the PROPH-aware application layer comprising server and client applications 304 and 306. For example, assume the PROPH-aware application layer determines that it can tolerate losing up to 10% of a given gradient G transmitted to parameter server 102, in order to speed up DL/FL training. In this case, the application layer can inform PROPH transport layer 302 of this 10% data loss threshold (e.g., at the time of initiating transfer of gradient G), and layer 302 can thereafter manage its receipt of network packets for G from client-side TCP transport layer 114 and deliver those packets to PROPH-aware server application 304 in a manner that respects the threshold, or in other words ensures no more than 10% of the delivered packet data is "lost" data.
Paragraph 19 describes, in the final sentence, a scenario where the PROPH transfer layer 302 of server 102 receives packets and delivers those packets in a manner that respects a threshold. Paragraph 19 does not support the applicant’s final limitation of each independent claims for three reasons. First, it is describing delivering the actual packets and not “data corresponding to the data transfer”. Second, it does not define what constitutes delivery “in a manner that respects the threshold”. Third, the transport layer delivers these packets to server 304 and not the recipient application as claimed. Paragraph 19 is the only use of the phrase “manner that respects” a threshold.
Figures 4-6 describe method of managing interactions between a sending client 104 and the parameter server 102 that hosts the claimed “transport layer”. They do not describe any delivery to a recipient application so they cannot provide support for the final limitation.
Section 2162 of the MPEP states:
To obtain a valid patent, a patent application must contain a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The requirement for an adequate written description ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent. The grant of a patent helps to foster and enhance the development and disclosure of new ideas and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Upon the grant of a patent in the U.S., information contained in the patent becomes a part of the information available to the public for further research and development, subject only to the patentee’s right to exclude others during the life of the patent.
Section 2163.03(V) of the MPEP states:
V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The applicant has not provided a full and clear description of what they doing to delivery data in a manner that respects a threshold. The applicant has failed to explain how such a function is performed. Based on the guidance provided in the MPEP, the Office rejects the claims for failing to meet the written description requirements of 35 USC section 112(a).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 feature the following limitation:
upon receiving the one or more signals, the server application creates synthetic substitutes for data in P(m).
There is no description provided by the applicant of how to create synthetic substitutes for data in P(m). Paragraphs 26 states that rows of a dataset can be “synthetically created” but does not describe what this synthetically created data is or how it is actually created. Paragraph 37 states that server application 304 can create “synthetic substitutes” for data in lost data frames. Paragraph 37 references “using a strategy that minimizes approximation error or bias” but does not provide any description of how such a strategy is implemented. In other words, paragraph 37 describes the benefits of having a strategy but does not actually describe what the strategy that provides those benefits is. Paragraph 38 states that the transport layer may handle data substitution instead of the server application but does not provide any description of the creation of “synthetic data”. Paragraphs 39 and 50 further reference using “synthetic data” but do not provide any description of how such data is created. For the reasons explained with respect to the independent claims, the applicant has failed to provide a description of creating synthetic data that meets the standards of written description specified in 35 USC section 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the final limitation of each independent claim deliver “data corresponding to a data transfer” but the claims do not establish how this data, which is dependent on the data transfer and therefore dynamic, is created so that it can be delivered.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: If the transport layer does not ever receive P(m) then it has no knowledge of P(m) so it could not add a payload size of P(m) to a count of data lost. The claim is missing steps for tracking expected packets at the transport layer to infer that P(m) is not received and what its payload size would be.
Claim 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 recite the limitation "the server application". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant appears to be trying to reference server 304 but has not coherently integrated it into the claim.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation "data in P(m)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. P(m) appears to cover a sequence number of a packet and not the packet itself. A sequence number, therefore, would not itself have data so it is not clear what data the applicant is trying to substitute.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “the amount of data received so far” cannot, by itself, meet the data loss threshold. The transport layer would have to know the amount of data lost in relation to the amount of data received in order to perform the claimed check. Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the specification explain how the transport layer is made aware of the total size of the data that is to be received and uses this information to compute the amount of data received so far that meets the data loss threshold.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 depends on itself, creating an undefined recursive situation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0126675 by Yoshimura et al.
As to claim 1, Yoshimura teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a transport layer of a first network endpoint (Figure 4, ref. no. 401 and 402 form transport layer), configuration information from a sender application running on a second network endpoint (Figure 4 and paragraph 69, packets from radio link include information which identified QOS of packets), the configuration information including a data loss threshold indicating an amount of data loss that may be tolerated for a data transfer from the sender application to a receiver application running on the first network endpoint (Upper layer Figure 4 is receiving application at first endpoint); receiving, by the transport layer, one or more network packets from the sender application as part of the data transfer (paragraph 67); and delivering, by the transport layer, data corresponding to the data transfer to the receiver application based on the one or more network packets in a manner that respects the data loss threshold (paragraphs 67 and 69).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, see paragraphs 79-86.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0126675 by Yoshimura et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0038899 by Banerjee et al. (part of IDS filed on 1/29/2025).
As to claim 2, Yoshimura teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however Yoshimura does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 2.
Banerjee teaches the subject matter of claim 2 (see Figure 8 and paragraphs 41-44, lost packets are tracked and added to byte count until they exceed a threshold and then ACK’s are sent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transport management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yoshimura regarding delivering data within an endpoint from a sender to the teachings of Banerjee regarding maintaining a size count of lost packets because the teachings of Banerjee would add a level of fault tolerance to the teachings of Yohimura.
As to claim 3, the line between step 835 and step 840 is the claimed signal and the code which executes step 840 is the “server” application, which is not defined by the claim.
As to claim 4, the fake acknowledgements created in step 840 are synthetic substitutes for data.
As to claim 7, Yoshimura teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however Yoshimura does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 7.
Banerjee teaches checking whether an amount of data received meets a threshold (step 825) and stops a transfer is when the data meets the threshold (step 830, stops the transfer that was occurring with respect to 840).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transport management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yoshimura regarding delivering data within an endpoint from a sender to the teachings of Banerjee regarding managing a data transfer by checking a minimum amount of data is met because doing so allows for a certain level of quality to be maintained.
As to claims 9, 10, and 14, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3, and 7.
As to claims 16, 17, and 21, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 3, and 7.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0126675 by Yoshimura et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0262578 by Arimilli et al.
As to claim 6, Yoshimura teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however Yoshimura does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claim 6, including waiting a second time interval for a packet to be delivered and handling a packet as lost if it is not received a second time.
Arimilli teaches waiting a second time interval for a packet to be delivered and handling a packet as lost if it is not received a second time (paragraphs 23 and 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the data transport management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Yoshimura regarding retrieving lost packets with the teachings of Arimilli regarding waiting a second time for a lost packet because doing so allows for a more robust delivery system.
As to claims 13 and 20, they are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, William Trost can be reached at 571-272-7872. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2442