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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1-19 cover a data transmission controller that is “configured” to perform operations. The first sentence of paragraph 69 of the applicant’s disclosure states that such a controller can be comprised solely of “code” and therefore it is broad enough to covers software per se. Claims directed towards software per se do not fit into any of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 7 further comprises an interface but the description of this interface in paragraph 73 provides examples of implementations but it is non-limiting. Claim 18 and 19 reference hardware but it is not claimed as part of the controller itself.
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 7-12 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.
Claim 7 is 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 “wherein” clause of claim 7 references that “the predefined number of frames” referenced in claim 1 “is a limited number of frames negotiated on connection establishment with the communication device” and this is “based on the communication parameters” which are defined in the previous “wherein” clause as being defined “during the initiation of the communication session”. The applicant does not define a step of “connection establishment” that defines the claimed negotiation. The “connection establishment” is based on “the communication parameters” which are defined “during initiation of the communication session” so the “connection establishment” cannot be interpreted as the initiation of a communication session at the beginning of claim 7. Claims 8-12 are unclear by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
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.
Claims 15-17 are 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. In claim 13, the data transmission controller is only “configured to execute” an API but the API is not actually part of the claim scope so the limitations to the API in claim 15 do not further limit the subject matter of either claims 1 or 13. The applicant appears to be drafting the claim this way because the API is described as being received from an external source and then executed (see Figure 2 and corresponding disclosure, data transmission controller receives API 208 as part of incoming data 202). 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 § 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) 1-6, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document titled “QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport” by Iyengar et al. in view of the document entitled “Network Enhancements for QUIC” by Menon et al.
As to claim 1, Iyengar teaches a data transmission controller, wherein the data transmission controller is configured to: generate one more data transmission packets according to a QUIC protocol, by generating one or more fields in the one or more data transmission packets to have a fixed field-size (section 4.2), and generating a predefined number of frames of different frame-types in a predefined frame-type order in the one or more data transmission packets (section 4.2.2. and section 6-6.10 read on the examples of ordering describe in paragraph 74 of the applicant’s disclosure); however, Iyengar does not teach that the packets are generated according to “modified” QUIC protocol.
Menon shows how to generate data transmission packets according to a “modified” QUIC protocol (See Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Computer Networking art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Iyengar regarding generating a data packet using a QUIC protocol with the teachings of Menon regarding generating a packet using a “modified” QUIC protocol because such an enhance protocol can improve connections for high bandwidth traffic (see Introduction of Menon). The Examiner notes that the applicant’s disclosure does not describe a specific “modified” QUIC protocol but instead is written to cover yet to be developed “modifications” to a QUIC protocol (see paragraph 148 of the specification).
As to claims 2 and 3, section 4.2.2 of Iyengar states the frames MUST fit within a single QUIC packet and thus defines the claimed maximum number per transmission packet claimed. Section 4.2.2 is describing how the number of frames can be set by allowing one or multiple frames per packet.
As to claim 4, see section 6.1 of Iyengar, the type field in the stream has a data length size associated with it.
As to claim 5, see section 4.1 and 4.2 of Iyengar, the version flag.
As to claim 6, see section 3.6 of Iyengar, the negotiation packets are not encrypted while other packets are, which shows the claimed “mode”, which is not defined in any technical manner by the claim.
As to claims 18 and 19, both references describe QUIC which cannot be implemented to receive and parse packets without the use of hardware.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document titled “QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport” by Iyengar et al. in view of the document entitled “Network Enhancements for QUIC” by Menon et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0394308 by Balasubramnian et al.
As to claim 13, the Iyengar-Menon combination shows the subject matter of claim 1 to be obvious; however, the Iyengar-Menon combination does not teach executing the claimed API.
Balasubramnian shows a data transmission controller can be configured to execute an API with a stream-aware mode and a stream-unaware mode (paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Computer Networking art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Iyengar regarding generating a data packet using a QUIC protocol with the teachings of Balasubramnian regarding using an API with stream aware/unaware modes because both references deal with QUIC protocols and the claims themselves do not specify how the exaction of the API does anything to alter the operation of claim 1.
As to claim 14, see paragraph 33 of Balasubramnian.
As to claim 15-17, see paragraphs 33-37 and 53-54 of Balasubramnian.
Claims Not Rejected with Prior Art
Claims 7-12 are not rejected via prior art. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0409447 by Dutta taught negotiating one or more of the communication parameters with the communication device during initialization of the communication session (paragraph 81), as in claim 12, but Dutta could not be mapped to the seemingly paradoxical “wherein” clauses of claim 7. Claims 8-12 were not rejected with prior art by virtue of the dependence on claim 7. The applicant should consider the teachings of Dutta when amending claim 7. Claims 7-12 are not indicted as allowable because they are rejected as not clear.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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 2454
Prosecution Insights