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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/084318 filed on 3/31/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CHINA 202110733685.0 filed on 6/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/12/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 and 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 23:
The terms “a large data throughput”, “a high use frequency”, and “a real-time application” in claims 10 and 23 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “a large data throughput”, “a high use frequency”, and “a real-time application” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide a clear or objective standard for determining what constitutes “a large data throughput”, “a high use frequency”, and “a real-time application”. Without a precise definition or specific criteria set forth in the specification, it becomes difficult for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the intended meaning or the boundaries of the term. Consequently, the claim fails to convey a clear and definite scope, leaving the terms “a large data throughput”, “a high use frequency”, and “a real-time application” open to subjective interpretation.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2015/0208217 A1, hereinafter Hong) in view of Li et al. (CN 110855610 A, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1:
Hong teaches a method, applied to a first electronic device (see, Hong: Fig. 50, Receiving-Side Electronic Device 5060), wherein the first electronic device comprises a driver (see, Hong: Fig. 1, Memory 130) and an application (see, Hong: Fig. 1, Applications 134; e.g., map application), and the method comprises:
receiving a request message (e.g., a sharing request) from a second electronic device (see, Hong: Fig. 50, Transmitting-Side Electronic Device 5000), wherein the request message requests to establish a data transmission connection (see, Hong: Fig. 50, Step 5015; para. [0275], “in operation 5015, the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 may send a sharing request to the receiving-side electronic device 5060 based on the obtained sharing object.”), the request message comprises connection information of the second electronic device (e.g., caller number or caller information) (see, Hong: para. [0271], “the receiving-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a caller number and caller information”, wherein the sharing request message comprises the caller number or caller information of the transmitting-side electronic device 5000.), and the data transmission connection is used to transmit service data (e.g., sharing object such as coordinate information) of the application (e.g., map application) (see, Hong: para. [0141], “the electronic device 910 may receive identification information for a specific service provided by the electronic device 930, from the electronic device 930 using the capability exchange protocol 953. In this case, based on the received identification information, the electronic device 910 may determine whether the electronic device 910 can support the specific service.”; para. [0274], “a user 1 of the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 may enter a command to designate the sharing object 5137 that the user 1 desires to share. The transmitting-side electronic device 5000 may obtain a sharing object based on the entered command. In the example of FIG. 52A, it will be assumed that the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 has obtained a map-related sharing object 5137.”);
generating an entry (e.g., a data session) based on the connection information of the second electronic device (e.g., caller number or caller information of the transmitting-side electronic device), connection information of the first electronic device (e.g., called number or callee information of the receiving-side electronic device), and information about the application (e.g., map application) (see, Hong: para. [0271], “The transmitting-side electronic device may transmit the data to the receiving-side electronic device through a data session. The transmitting-side electronic device may generate a data session based on the information related to the connected voice call. For example, the transmitting-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a called number and callee information, and a detailed description thereof will be given below. In addition, the receiving-side electronic device may also generate a data session based on the information related to the connected voice call. For example, the receiving-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a caller number and caller information, and a detailed description thereof will be given below.”; para. [0279], “the receiving-side electronic device 5060 may execute a sharing application. The sharing application may be an application corresponding to the sharing object. As described above, in one exemplary embodiment, the sharing object may be a map-related sharing object, and the receiving-side electronic device 5060 may display a map application as shown in FIG. 53B.”, wherein the sharing application is a map application, for example.), wherein the entry (e.g., data session) comprises first connection identification information (e.g., caller information) and first application identification information (e.g., application information), the first connection identification information indicates the data transmission connection, and the first application identification information indicates the application (see, Hong: para. [0270], “The transmitting-side electronic device may run a sharing application corresponding to the sharing object. The sharing application may output data. The data may be based on a first format. The sharing application may be set to output data of the first format. The first format may be a format that is defined in common to both of the transmitting-side electronic device and the receiving-side electronic device. More specifically, an application stored in the receiving-side electronic device may also process data of the first format. For example, if the sharing application is a map application, the data output from the map application may be coordinate information. … An example of the first format may include user information (e.g., address book information), image information, URL, public transport information, movie, time, text, alarm, application information, goods information, bank information, price, weather, barcode, Wi-Fi, control, sketch, touch, coordinate information, and the like.”; para. [0271], “the receiving-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a caller number and caller information”);
receiving service data (e.g., coordinate information) from the second electronic device (see, Hong: para. [0090], “the transmitting-side electronic device 101 may transmit the data in real time to the receiving-side electronic device 104 to share the data in real time. … the processor of the receiving-side electronic device 104 may store the received data in its memory, completing the data sharing.”; para. [0282], “the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 may transmit the obtained sharing data to the receiving-side electronic device 5060. For example, the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 may transmit the coordinate information for the current location of the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 to the receiving-side electronic device 5060, as sharing data.”), wherein the service data carries second connection identification information (e.g., caller information) of data transmission (see, Hong: Claim 9, “wherein the receiving of the data from the transmitting-side electronic device comprises: receiving at least one of caller information”); and
when the second connection identification information (e.g., caller information) of the data transmission is consistent (i.e., connected voice cell) with the first connection identification information (e.g., caller information) in the entry (see Hong: para. [0271]),
processing the service data by executing the application indicated by the first application identification information (see, Hong: para. [0284], “the receiving-side electronic device 5060 may receive sharing data, determine the format or type of the received sharing data, execute a sharing application corresponding thereto to process the sharing data, and output the processing results.”, wherein the received sharing data is temporarily stored in the memory of the receiving side electronic device 5060 after reception from the transmitting-side electronic device 5000 and is processed by the sharing application (i.e., the sharing data is copied from the temporary storage in the memory to the application for processing.).
Hong does not explicitly teach wherein copying the service data from the driver to the application.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein copying the service data from the driver to the application (see, Li: para. [0053-0054], pages 7-8 of English translation, “Step 402, copying the data packet from the hardware cache region of the network card to the user mode memory region of the application program according to the preset mapping relation. In this embodiment of the present invention, in this step 402, when copying the data packet from the hardware cache region of the network card to the user-mode memory region of the application program, the data packet may be copied from the hardware cache region to the user-mode memory region of the application program according to a mapping relationship between the index address of each storage unit in the hardware cache region and the index address of each storage unit in the user-mode memory region. The mapping relation is obtained by associating a hardware cache region of the network card with a user mode memory region in advance by a specific address mapping driver of the network card.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in combination of the teachings of Li in order to copy the data packet from the hardware cache region of the network card to the user mode memory region of the application program according to the preset mapping relation (see, Li: para. [0084], page 10 of English translation).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Li further teaches wherein copying the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information indicates transparently transmitting the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information (see, Li: para. [0053-0054], pages 7-8 of English translation, “Step 402, copying the data packet from the hardware cache region of the network card to the user mode memory region of the application program according to the preset mapping relation. In this embodiment of the present invention, in this step 402, when copying the data packet from the hardware cache region of the network card to the user-mode memory region of the application program, the data packet may be copied from the hardware cache region to the user-mode memory region of the application program according to a mapping relationship between the index address of each storage unit in the hardware cache region and the index address of each storage unit in the user-mode memory region. The mapping relation is obtained by associating a hardware cache region of the network card with a user mode memory region in advance by a specific address mapping driver of the network card.”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein the connection information of the second electronic device (e.g., voice call connection) comprises one or more of an address of the second electronic device (e.g., a caller number or caller information), a port number of the second electronic device, a protocol number of the second electronic device, or an interface identifier of the second electronic device; and the connection information of the first electronic device (e.g., voice call connection) comprises one or more of an address of the first electronic device (e.g., called number or callee information), a port number of the first electronic device, or an interface identifier of the first electronic device (see, Hong: para. [0098], “the transmitting-side electronic device can share the data corresponding to the sharing object with the receiving-side electronic device during the voice call connection.”; para. [0206], “the voice call may be connected between the first electronic device 2500 and the second electronic device 2520.”; para. [0271], “The transmitting-side electronic device may transmit the data to the receiving-side electronic device through a data session. The transmitting-side electronic device may generate a data session based on the information related to the connected voice call. For example, the transmitting-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a called number and callee information, and a detailed description thereof will be given below. In addition, the receiving-side electronic device may also generate a data session based on the information related to the connected voice call. For example, the receiving-side electronic device may generate a data session based on at least one of a caller number and caller information, and a detailed description thereof will be given below.”).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong further teaches wherein the application has a large data throughput, or the application has a high use frequency, or the application is a real-time application (see, Hong: para. [0090], “the transmitting-side electronic device 101 may transmit the data in real time to the receiving-side electronic device 104 to share the data in real time.”).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards a first electronic device (see, Hong: Fig. 50, Receiving-Side Electronic Device 5060; Fig. 1, Electronic Device 101), comprising: one or more processors (see, Hong: Fig. 1, Processor 120) and one or more memories (see, Hong: Fig. 1, Memory 130), wherein the one or more memories are coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more memories store computer program code, the computer program code comprises computer instructions, and when the one or more processors execute the computer instructions (see, Hong: Fig. 1, para. [0341]), the first electronic device is enabled to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 23:
Claim 23 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 10. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 10 above.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Li further in view of Singhal et al. (US 2021/0014328 A1, hereinafter Singhal).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the first connection identification information in the entry comprises any one type of information in 5-tuple information, 3-tuple information, 7-tuple information, or an interface identifier.
In the same field of endeavor, Singhal teaches wherein the first connection identification information in the entry comprises any one type of information in 5-tuple information, 3-tuple information, 7-tuple information, or an interface identifier (see, Singhal: Claim 3, “receiving a connection request further includes inspecting IP packets in the received connection request and generating a 5-tuple consisting of: IP source and destination addresses; a layer 4 transport protocol (e.g. TCP or UDP), and a transport protocol source and destination ports contained in the received connection request.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in view of Li in combination of the teachings of Singhal in order to for the receiving-side of electronic device of Hong to be able to determine if any of the following connection attempt from the transmitting-side electronic device of Hong is a new or existing connection (see, Singhal: para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 4. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Li further in view of Mobarak et al. (US 2011/0264865 A1, hereinafter Mobarak).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the entry further comprises a minimum time to live (TTL) value and a maximum TTL value.
In the same field of endeavor, Mobarak teaches wherein the entry further comprises a minimum time to live (TTL) value and a maximum TTL value (see, Mobarak: para. [0047], “A cached entry may be assigned an expiration date or Time To Live setting within a range determined by the maximum Time To Live parameter and the minimum Time To Live parameter.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in view of Li in combination of the teachings of Mobarak in order to determine a range of permissible expiration times for a cached entry by setting a maximum Time To Live parameter and a minimum Time To Live parameter (see, Mobarak: para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Li further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2017/0048105 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein after copying the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information, the method further comprises: processing the service data by using the application indicated by the first application identification information, wherein the processing comprises decapsulating a standard transport layer header and a standard internet protocol (IP) layer header.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches herein after copying the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information, the method further comprises: processing the service data by using the application indicated by the first application identification information, wherein the processing comprises decapsulating a standard transport layer header and a standard internet protocol (IP) layer header (see, Zhang: para. [0004], “In a data transmission process, decapsulation is performed from a lower layer to an upper layer and encapsulation is performed from the upper layer to the lower layer. Therefore, when data is routed according to the IP to enter the PGW, decapsulation is started from the lower layer, that is, decapsulation is performed layer by layer from a link layer, a network layer, a transport layer and an application layer. After decapsulation is performed at an IP layer, destination address information is determined according to header information of a data packet, and then the data is transmitted to the transport layer. After decapsulation is performed at the transport layer, source port information and destination port information are determined, and then the data is sent to the application layer. Information about a bearer required for sending the data is determined at the application layer.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in view of Li in combination of the teachings of Zhang in order to determine destination address information as well as source port information and destination port information according to header information of a data packet before sending the data to the application layer (see, Zhang: para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Li further in view of Almog (US 2008/0140847 A1, hereinafter Almog).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein after copying the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information, the method further comprises: deleting the entry.
In the same field of endeavor, Almog teaches wherein after copying the service data from the driver to the application indicated by the first application identification information, the method further comprises: deleting the entry (see, Almog: para. [0107], “After forwarding the packet, its associated meta data and the associated entry in the shared memory can be released.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in view of Li in combination of the teachings of Almog in order to release or delete the associated entry in the shared memory after the packet (e.g., sharing data of Hong) is delivered to the application (see, Almog: para. [0107]).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li and Almog teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Almog further teaches wherein deleting the entry comprises:
deleting the entry after the data transmission connection is disconnected (see, Almog: para. [0146], “Other exemplary embodiments of the present invention may release the entry at the end of a certain period after the termination of the connection. The period may be related to the period of time that a common cache exists. In an alternate embodiment, the period can be a fixed time, e.g. 12, 24, 48 hours, etc. Other embodiments may be configured to release an entry from the queue upon receiving a command from the remote client.”).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 20 that is further limited to similar features to claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Li further in view of Ram et al. (US 2012/0239697 A1, hereinafter Ram).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Hong in view of Li teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hong in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: deleting an expired entry periodically.
In the same field of endeavor, Ram teaches wherein the method further comprises: deleting an expired entry periodically (see, Ram: para. [0070], “Periodically, the cache manager 320 may delete or mark as invalid entries that have expired.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hong in view of Li in combination of the teachings of Ram in order to delete expired or invalid entries from the cache memory (see, Ram: para. [0070]).
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 is directed towards the first electronic device according to claim 12 that is further limited to similar features to claim 9. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471