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 § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IT 201800004914 (cited on IDS) [R1].
For claim 1, R1 discloses a) by each one of said two nodes, switching said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes upon detection of a switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes (paragraphs 38-50 marking value is switched), wherein at least one of said two nodes, upon said detection of said switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes, waits a wait time Tw before switching said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes (paragraphs 38-50 having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets).
For claim 14, R1 discloses exchange a bidirectional packet flow (Pk, Pk') with another node of said packet-switched communication network, said node being configured to apply a respective marking value [[(M1)]] to packets [[(Pk)]] of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to said other node said node being configured to (paragraphs 38-50 having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets) :a) switch said respective marking value [[(M1)]] applicable to packets [[(Pk)]] of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to said other node upon detection of a switching of the marking value [[(M2)]] applied to packets [[(Pk')]] of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from said other node, wherein said node is further configured to, upon said detection of said switching of the marking value applied to packets [[(Pk')]] of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from said other node, wait a wait time Tw before switching said respective marking value [[(M1)]] applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to said other node (paragraphs 38-50 marking value, having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets).
For claim 15, R1 discloses two nodes exchanging a bidirectional packet flow, each one of said two nodes applying a respective marking value to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two node (paragraphs 38-50 having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets),wherein: a) each one of said two nodes is configured to switch said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes upon detection of a switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes (paragraphs 38-50 having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets), wherein at least one of said two nodes is further configured to, upon said detection of said switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes, wait a wait time Tw before switching said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes (paragraphs 38-50 marking value having a wait time period for determining marking value applicable packets).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Performance Measurements of QUIC communications (cited on IDS) [R2].
For claim 2, R1 does not explicitly disclose step a) comprises, after said switching, keeping said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes fixed, until a further switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes is detected. R2 discloses disclose step a) comprises, after said switching, keeping said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes fixed, until a further switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes is detected (Sections 3, 3.3.1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use step a) comprises, after said switching, keeping said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes fixed, until a further switching of the marking value applied to packets of said bidirectional packet flow which are being received from the other one of said two nodes is detected taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
For claim 3, R1 does not explicitly disclose step a) comprises, after said switching, transmitting one packet (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to the other one of said two nodes and then switching again said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes. R2 discloses disclose step a) comprises, after said switching, transmitting one packet (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to the other one of said two nodes and then switching again said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes (Sections 3, 3.3.1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use step a) comprises, after said switching, transmitting one packet of said bidirectional packet flow to the other one of said two nodes and then switching again said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
For claim 4, R1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the value of said wait time Tw is selected by said at least one node, said value of said wait time Tw being unknown to parties non authorized by an entity managing said at least one node. R2 discloses wherein the value of said wait time Tw is selected by said at least one node, said value of said wait time Tw being unknown to parties non authorized by an entity managing said at least one node (Sections 3, 3.3.1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use disclose wherein the value of said wait time Tw is selected by said at least one node, said value of said wait time Tw being unknown to parties non authorized by an entity managing said at least one node taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
For claim 5, R1 does not explicitly disclose wherein said at least one node selects said value of said wait time Tw in a random way from a predefined selection range. R2 discloses wherein said at least one node selects said value of said wait time Tw in a random way from a predefined selection range (Section 3.3.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use wherein said at least one node selects said value of said wait time Tw in a random way from a predefined selection range taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
For claim 6, R1 does not explicitly disclose a probability density function in said predefined selection range is non uniform, the probability of lower values of said predefined selection range being higher than the probability of higher values of said predefined selection range. R2 discloses a probability density function in said predefined selection range is non uniform, the probability of lower values of said predefined selection range being higher than the probability of higher values of said predefined selection range (Sections 3, 3.3.1, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use wherein a probability density function in said predefined selection range is non uniform, the probability of lower values of said predefined selection range being higher than the probability of higher values of said predefined selection range taught by R2. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
Claims 7, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Client0Server Explicit Performance Measurements; draft-cfb-ippm-spinbit-measurements-01.txt. (cited on IDS) [R3].
For claim 7, R1 does not explicitly state said at least one node periodically changes the value of said wait time Tw. R3 discloses said at least one node periodically changes the value of said wait time Tw (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use said at least one node periodically changes the value of said wait time Tw taught by R3. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.For claim 8, R1 does not explicitly state said at least one node changes the value of said wait time Tw when it is assigned a new IP address. R3 discloses said at least one node changes the value of said wait time Tw when it is assigned a new IP address (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use said at least one node changes the value of said wait time Tw when it is assigned a new IP address by R3. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
For claim 11, R1 does not explicitly state said at least one of said two nodes forces said switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes when a maximum time Tmax has lapsed since last switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one (2, 1) of said two nodes. R3 discloses said at least one of said two nodes forces said switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one (2, 1) of said two nodes when a maximum time Tmax has lapsed since last switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one (2, 1) of said two nodes (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use said at least one (1, 2) of said two nodes forces said switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one (2, 1) of said two nodes when a maximum time Tmax has lapsed since last switching of said respective marking value (M1, M2) applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes by R3. The rationale to combine would be for efficient resource usage.
For claim 13, the previous combination does not explicitly disclose c) by said measurement point (10; 11), detecting also an intervening switching [[(S1')]] of the marking value applied to packets (Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from said other one of said two nodes and to said one of said two nodes, said intervening switching [[(S1')]] occurring between said first switching and said second switching, and providing at least one of:- a further round-trip time measurement between said measurement point (10; 11) and said other one of said two nodes as a time lapsing between said first switching and said intervening switching [[(S1')]]; and- a still further round-trip time measurement between said one of said two nodes and said measurement point (10; 11) as a time lapsing between said intervening switching and said second switching, decreased by said wait time Tw. Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of c) by said measurement point (10; 11), detecting also an intervening switching of the marking value applied to packets (Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from said other one of said two nodes and to said one of said two nodes, said intervening switching [[(S1')]] occurring between said first switching [[(S1)]] and said second switching [[(S2)]], and providing at least one of:- a further round-trip time measurement between said measurement point (10; 11) and said other one of said two nodes as a time lapsing between said first switching and said intervening switching; and- a still further round-trip time measurement between said one of said two nodes and said measurement point as a time lapsing between said intervening switching and said second switching, decreased by said wait time Tw, was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use c) by said measurement point, detecting also an intervening switching [[(S1')]] of the marking value applied to packets (Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from said other one of said two nodes and to said one of said two nodes, said intervening switching [[(S1')]] occurring between said first switching and said second switching [[(S2)]], and providing at least one of:- a further round-trip time measurement between said measurement point (10; 11) and said other one of said two nodes as a time lapsing between said first switching and said intervening switching; and- a still further round-trip time measurement between said one of said two nodes and said measurement point as a time lapsing between said intervening switching and said second switching, decreased by said wait time Tw. The rationale to combine would be to allow efficient resource usage.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by R1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over R1 in view of R3.
For claim 9, R1 discloses if said at least one node runs more than one application generating packets of said bidirectional packet flow, said more than one application apply a same value of said wait time Tw (paragraphs 38-50 conditional limitations in a method claim are not required to disclose the claimed invention). Or, in the alternative, R3 discloses if said at least one node runs more than one application generating packets of said bidirectional packet flow, said more than one application apply a same value of said wait time Tw (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use if said at least one node runs more than one application generating packets of said bidirectional packet flow, said more than one application apply a same value of said wait time Tw taught by R3. The rationale to combine would be for efficient transmissions.
For claim 10, R1 discloses at least one of said two nodes performs said switching of said respective marking value applicable to said packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes only if a time lapsing between said detection and a subsequent transmission of a packet to said other one of said two nodes does not exceed a respective predefined threshold (paragraphs 38-50 conditional limitations in a method claim are not required to disclose the claimed invention, Examiner recommends stating the conditional limitation as a required limitation). Or, in the alternative, R3 discloses at least one of said two nodes performs said switching of said respective marking value applicable to said packets (Pk, Pk') of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes only if a time lapsing between said detection and a subsequent transmission of a packet (Pk, Pk') to said other one of said two nodes does not exceed a respective predefined threshold (El, E2) (Sections 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use said at least one of said two nodes forces said switching of said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes when a maximum time Tmax has lapsed since last switching of said respective marking value applicable to packets of said bidirectional packet flow to be transmitted to the other one of said two nodes taught by R3. The rationale to combine would be for efficient transmissions.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by R1 or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over R1.
For claim 12, R1 discloses b) by a measurement point) placed on a path of said bidirectional packet flow, detecting a first switching and a second switching of the marking value [[(M1)]] applied to packets [[(Pk)]] of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from one of said two nodes and to the other one of said two nodes and providing a round-trip time measurement between said two nodes (1, 2) as a time lapsing between said first switching [[(S1)]] and said second switching [[(S2)]], decreased by said wait time Tw (paragraphs 38-50). Or, in the alternative, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of b) by a measurement point) placed on a path of said bidirectional packet flow, detecting a first switching and a second switching of the marking value [[(M1)]] applied to packets [[(Pk)]] of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from one of said two nodes and to the other one of said two nodes and providing a round-trip time measurement between said two nodes (1, 2) as a time lapsing between said first switching [[(S1)]] and said second switching [[(S2)]], decreased by said wait time Tw, was common and well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use b) by a measurement point) placed on a path of said bidirectional packet flow, detecting a first switching and a second switching of the marking value [[(M1)]] applied to packets [[(Pk)]] of said bidirectional packet flow transmitted from one of said two nodes and to the other one of said two nodes and providing a round-trip time measurement between said two nodes (1, 2) as a time lapsing between said first switching [[(S1)]] and said second switching, decreased by said wait time Tw. The rationale to combine would be for efficient transmissions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Cociglio (WO 2014191048) discloses marking values for packets; Zhan (CN-110061920) discloses marking for packets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3678. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463