DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees in-part. The argument is partially persuasive as a few of the 112(b) rejections have been overcome. However, most of the 112(b) rejections remain and a few more were introduced with the amendments to the claims. The amendments to the claims change the scope of the invention.
Examiner note: updated search was conducted no prior art was discovered to read on the amended claims.
Please see updated office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a consecutive predetermined periods” in line 4. It should read “[[a]] consecutive predetermined periods”. This same objection applies to Claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b):
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites “and the processing circuit changes a total number of first periods and second periods included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of the first periods and the second periods passes” in lines 8-10. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “first periods”, “second periods”.
This same rejection applies to Claim 6 & 10.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites “and the processing circuit changes a total number of first periods and second periods included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of the first periods and the second periods passes” in line 8-10. This renders the claim unclear as this requires EACH time this occurs for the processing circuit to change the total number of first and second periods – and as such, this process is indefinite. The claim limitation needs to include a boundary/range for this action. {Specification shows: The period change process is a process of changing the total number, the position of the boundary, and the like according to the pattern data for the open periods and the close periods of the communication queue Qm over the first to Kth cycles.}
This same rejection applies to Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.
Claim 1 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 structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “first period and second period” and “the first periods and second periods”. This renders the claim unclear as there is no structural cooperative relationships of these elements in the claim. The limitation “and the processing circuit changes a total number of first periods and second periods included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of the first periods and the second periods passes” has no structural cooperative relationships defined. There is no relationship between “first period and second period” and “the first periods and the second periods” as recited.
This same rejection applies to Claim 6.
Claim 1 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 1 recites “and when the processing unit determines that the communication data is stored in the storage unit, specifies a period, from the first period and the second period, when a communication determination time corresponding to when the determination has been performed belongs.” in lines 12-15. This renders the claim unclear as the scope of this limitation cannot be determined. First, the communication data has already been stored and this limitation starts with a determining of whether or not data is stored. Then the limitation states “specify a period … a communication determination time corresponding to when the determination has been performed belongs”. The determination – the determination of what belongs? Further, if the determination is that the communication is not stored – then the second limitation of the claim is incorrect – “data is stored”.
This same rejection applies to Claim 6 & 10.
Claim 1 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 structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: relay device and “second” processing circuit. Claim 1 recites “wherein the storage unit is connected to a processing circuit; and processing circuit configured to” in lines 5-6. This renders the claim unclear as there is no structural cooperative relationships of these elements in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the processing unit” in line 12. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “processing unit”. Previous limitations recite “processing circuit”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 10 recites “a step of changing a total number of first periods and second periods, which are alternately set, included in a next predetermined period each time a period including the first periods and the second periods passes;” in line 5-7. This renders the claim unclear as this requires EACH time this occurs - to change the total number of first and second periods – and as such, this process is indefinite. The claim limitation needs to set a boundary/range for this action. {Specification shows: The period change process is a process of changing the total number, the position of the boundary, and the like according to the pattern data for the open periods and the close periods of the communication queue Qm over the first to Kth cycles.}
Claim 10 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 structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: 1) “first period and second period” and “first periods and second periods”, 2) relay device, communication device, and a computer coupled to the storage device, 3) components of the relay device – receiving circuit, storage unit, processing circuit. This renders the claim unclear as there is no structural cooperative relationships of these elements in the claim. 1) “a step of changing a total number of first periods and second periods, which are alternately set, included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of first periods and the second periods passes” has no structural cooperative relationships defined. There is no relationship between “first period and second period” and “the first periods and the second periods” as recited. 2) The relay device receives communication data from the communication device but there is no structural cooperative relationships, ie. connection, defined (ie. a network, a link) between the relay device and the communication device. There is also missing a relationship between a computer and the relay device as to carrying out the processing method of the relay device when there is no relationship defined between the relay device and the computer coupled to the storage device. 3) The components of the relay device have no structural cooperative relationships, ie. connections, defined. For example, the storage unit receives the data that was received by the receiving circuit but there is no connection defined between these two elements.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a computer coupled to the storage device” in line 4. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previous limitations do not recite “a storage device”. Previous limitation recites “a storage unit”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the total numbers in a plurality of consecutive predetermined periods” in line 3. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and previous limitations do not recite “total numbers” {numbers is plural}. Previous limitation recites “a total number”.
This same rejection applies to Claims 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,17.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the positions of the boundaries in the plurality of predetermined periods are different” in lines 4-5. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and previous limitations do not recite “positions of boundaries” {boundaries is plural}. Previous limitation recites “a position of a boundary”.
This same rejection applies to Claim 14.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the processing circuit” in line 1. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and “processing circuit” is recited twice. It is unclear as to which “the processing circuit” refers back to.
This same rejection applies to Claim 3, 4, 5.
All dependents are also rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims from which they depend.
Claims not rejected with Prior Art
Claims 1-17 are allowable over the prior art as no art has been discovered to read on them. However, Claims 1-17 are rejected under 112(b) and as such, it is impossible to ascertain the true scope of the claims.
The prior art does not teach “processing circuit configured to perform processing, wherein a first period and a second period are alternately set, and the processing circuit changes a total number of first periods and second periods included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of the first periods and the second periods passes, determines whether or not the communication data is stored in the storage unit,
and when the processing unit determines that the communication data is stored in the storage unit, specifies a period, from the first period and the second period, when a communication determination time corresponding to when the determination has been performed belongs.” in light of other features as described in Claim 1.
The prior art does not teach “relay processing circuit performing processing wherein a first period and a second period are alternately set; and the relay processing circuit changes a total number of the first periods and the second periods included in a next predetermined period each time a predetermined period including the total number of the first periods and the second periods passes, determines whether or not the communication data is stored in the relay storage unit, and when it is determined that the communication data is stored in the relay storage unit, specifies a period, from the first period and the second period, when a communication determination time corresponding to when the determination has been performed belongs” in light of other features as described in Claim 6.
The prior art does not teach “a computer coupled to the storage device, to execute: a step of changing a total number of first periods and second periods, which are alternately set, included in a next predetermined period each time a period including the total number of first periods and the second periods passes; a step of determining whether or not the communication data is stored in the storage unit; and when the communication data is stored in the storage unit, specifying a period from the first period and the second period when a communication determination time corresponding to when the determination has been performed belongs.” in light of other features as described in Claim 10.
Conclusion & Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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 B Burgess can be reached on (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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights