DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-9, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “A method for processing broadcast operations, the method comprising: determining a partition identifier associated with a broadcast operation based on an identifier of a first user process that issued the broadcast operation; generating a sub-partition mask based on the partition identifier, wherein the sub-partition mask identifies a subset of system components included in a plurality of system components assigned to the first user process;” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “computer-implemented” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic processor or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim includes additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity “transmitting the broadcast operation to the subset of system components based on the sub-partition mask.”
The “transmitting” step is not a practical application because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “transmitting” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “computer-implemented” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims include additional elements “transmitting the broadcast operation to the subset of system components based on the sub-partition mask.”
The “transmitting” step is not significantly more than the abstract idea and fails inventive concept because is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements are not an inventive concept, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2 is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “wherein the subset of system components comprises a subset of a memory system.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, i.e. a memory system to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, nor is an inventive concept, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein determining the partition identifier comprises: accessing an entry in a lookup table entry comprising a configuration associated with the first user process, wherein the entry is identified by the identifier of the first user process; and extracting the partition identifier from the entry.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: determining that the first user process is idle; and allowing the entry in the lookup table entry to be reconfigured while a second user process is executing.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: determining that the first user process is idle; and allowing the entry in the lookup table entry to be reconfigured while a second user process is executing.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the identifier of the first user process is included in metadata associated with the broadcast operation.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: receiving an acknowledgement from each system component the subset of system components, wherein the acknowledgement indicates that the corresponding system component has processed the broadcast operation; and in response to receiving the acknowledgement from each system component, transmitting an acknowledgement to the first user process that the broadcast operation has been processed.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because it is merely data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: receiving an indication that the broadcast operation has been processed by each system component included in the subset of system components, wherein transmitting the acknowledgement to the first user process is further in response to receiving the indication that the broadcast operation has been processed by each system component.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because it is merely data input and output is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 9, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein: the sub-partition mask comprises a bit mask, and each bit included in the bit mask corresponds to a different system component included in the plurality of system components.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely an abstract idea.
Claim 12, is an independent system claim which corresponds with claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements “A system comprising: a memory including instructions; a first processor coupled to the memory” The memory and a processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic processor, and generic memory) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 4 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 5 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 6 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 8 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 9 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dyke et al. (U.S. Patent 6,999,088) in view of Safari (U.S. Patent 9,042,405)
Claim 1, Van Dyke teaches a computer-implemented method for processing broadcast operations, the method comprising:
determining a partition identifier associated with a broadcast operation based on an identifier of a first user process that issued the broadcast operation (see col. 3, lines 25-35, col. 4, lines 65-67, and col. 5, lines 1-10 “FIG. 3 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a partitioned memory system 300 of the present invention. A memory structure 325 has a plurality of memory partitions 320a, 320b, 320c, and 320d.” and “For example, an A mask list has associated with it a mask field of elements 0, 3, 4 and 7 represented as A [xxxx] for memory transfer operations with the A subpartition. A B mask list has a mask field of elements 2, 1, 6, and 5 represented as B [yyyy] for memory transfer operations with the B subpartition.”);
generating a sub-partition mask based on the partition identifier (see col. 3, lines 35-50, col. 4, lines 65-57, col. 5 lines 1-15, “A memory controller 310 controls access to the respective subpartitions of each of the partitions 320a, 320b, 320c, and 320d that make up a virtually unified memory structure. The memory transfer access size of a full partition is a first size "a packet size" and the memory transfer access size of each subpartition is a second smaller size "a subpacket size." For example, in one embodiment, a main bus 390 having a bus width (BW) further branches into partition buses 380 each having a bus width BW/4. In turn, each sub-partition receives half of the partition bus bandwidth, or BW/8. In one embodiment of the present invention, the bus width for the memory controller is 256 bit memory arrangement where each of eight subpartitions includes a 32 pin wide dynamic random access memory (DRAM).” See “In one embodiment, memory controller 310 generates a 4 bit mask for each sub-partition For example, an A mask list has associated with it a mask field of elements 0, 3, 4 and 7 represented as A [xxxx] for memory transfer operations with the A subpartition. A B mask list has a mask field of elements 2, 1, 6, and 5 represented as B [yyyy] for memory transfer operations with the B subpartition. As an illustrative example, assume that the mask list generated by memory controller 310 for the A subpartition is A[1001] while the mask list generated for the B subpartition is B[1101], where 1 in each instance indicates the existence of a subpacket for that entity, then the subpartition transfer arrangement will take place in the following order. Transfer 0 will include A0 and B2. Transfer 1 would include A7 and B 1. The final data transfer would be for B5 alone since the A mask list does not identify a third subpacket. Since sub-partition A only accesses the subpackets A0, A3, A4, A7 and sub-partition B can only access subpackets B1, B2, B5, B6, only A and B accesses can be paired.”),
Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches wherein the sub-partition mask identifies a subset of system components included in a plurality of system components assigned to the first user process (see col. 13, lines 50-55, “The component 162-3 is a six-bit identifier of the physical port of the ingress device at which the packet is received. In at least some of the embodiments, the identifier 162-3 uniquely identifies the physical port within the network device that receives the packet, but not necessarily within the entire logical system. In an embodiment, the identifier 162-3 uniquely identifies the physical port within the stackable system that includes the ingress device. Further, the component 164-4 is a seven-bit identifier of the trunk via which the packet is received at the ingress device. Depending on the embodiment, the trunk spans one or more physical ports on a single network device or multiple network devices.”); and
transmitting the broadcast operation to the subset of system components based on the sub-partition mask (see col. 17, lines 1-10, “The Layer-2 multicast replicator unit 244 provides the packet to a transmit queuing and port rate shaping unit (transmit queuing unit) 246. The transmit queuing unit 246 generally performs rate shaping and queues packets in a plurality of queues corresponding to different classes of flows and/or different physical ports, for example.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 2, Van Dyke teaches wherein the subset of system components comprises a subset of a memory system (see col. 3, lines 25-50, “Each memory partition is further divided into at least two subpartitions. In an exemplary embodiment, each partition, also referred to as P.sub.0, P.sub.1, P.sub.2, and P.sub.3, is comprised of two subpartitions. For example, partition P.sub.0 has subpartition P.sub.00 and P.sub.01. Partition P.sub.1 has subpartitions P.sub.10 and P.sub.11. Partition P.sub.2 has subpartitions P.sub.20 and P.sub.21. Finally, partition P.sub.3 has subpartitions P.sub.30 and P.sub.31.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 3, Van Dyke teaches wherein the broadcast operation comprises at least one of a cache state management operation or a memory synchronization operation (see col. 12, lines 55-60, “Similarly, when a packet is to be broadcast, multicast, flooded, etc., for example, a replication unit of the network device 100 utilizes the eVIDX to determine how many copies of a packet to create, and to determine the eports to which the copies should be passed, in some scenarios.”).
Claim 4, Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches teaches wherein determining the partition identifier comprises: accessing an entry in a lookup table entry comprising a configuration associated with the first user process, wherein the entry is identified by the identifier of the first user process (see col. 12, lines 45-60, “an index indicating a list of eports and/or v) an index indicating a list of physical ports to which the packet should be replicated (referred to herein as eVIDX and VIDX, respectively), etc. Further, when a packet is to be broadcast, multicast, flooded, etc., for example, a replication unit of a network device or centralized packet processor utilizes the VIDX to determine how many copies of a packet to create, and to determine the physical ports to which the copies should be passed, in some scenarios. Similarly, when a packet is to be broadcast, multicast, flooded, etc., for example, a replication unit of the network device 100 utilizes the eVIDX to determine how many copies of a packet to create, and to determine the eports to which the copies should be passed, in some scenarios.”); and extracting the partition identifier from the entry (see col. 13, lines 10-20 “In other embodiments, the selectors 164 are implemented as functions that extract and shift bits in specified positions of the corresponding information component. For example, in a configuration consistent with one such embodiment, the selectors 164-1, 164-2, 164-3, and 164-4 specify that five LSBs are extracted from the component 162-1, and three LSBs are extracted from each of the components 164-2, 164-3, and 164-4. In still other embodiments, the selectors 164 are implemented as hashing functions.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 5, Van Dyke teaches further comprising: determining that the first user process is idle; and allowing the entry in the lookup table entry to be reconfigured while a second user process is executing (see col. 15, lines 45-67, “The port MAC receiver unit 120 generally implements media access control functions. Further, the ingress portion 202 includes a header decode unit 222 coupled to the port MAC receiver unit 220 to decode the header of each packet received via the ingress physical ports 208. A MAC2ME & TTI classification unit 224 is coupled to the header decode unit 222 to generally perform several functions, including for example, assigning or, in some circumstances, reassigning a source eport to each packet, assigning and/or reassigning an eVLAN to some packets, and performing lookup functions (e.g., looking up packets that are destined to a certain MAC address, looking up termination and interface assignment (TTI), etc). In one embodiment, the MAC2ME & TTI classification unit 224 includes a TRILL engine 226 configured to operate according to the TRILL protocol set forth in the Request for Comments (RFC) 556 from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), dated May 2009. Depending on the embodiment, the MAC2ME & TTI classification unit 224 utilizes one or more tables, databases, and/or other data library maintained in one or more memory components, such as a ternary content-addressable memory (TCAM).”).
Claim 6, Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches wherein the identifier of the first user process is included in metadata associated with the broadcast operation (see col. 12, lines 45-60, “an index indicating a list of eports and/or v) an index indicating a list of physical ports to which the packet should be replicated (referred to herein as eVIDX and VIDX, respectively), etc. Further, when a packet is to be broadcast, multicast, flooded, etc., for example, a replication unit of a network device or centralized packet processor utilizes the VIDX to determine how many copies of a packet to create, and to determine the physical ports to which the copies should be passed, in some scenarios. Similarly, when a packet is to be broadcast, multicast, flooded, etc., for example, a replication unit of the network device 100 utilizes the eVIDX to determine how many copies of a packet to create, and to determine the eports to which the copies should be passed, in some scenarios.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 7, Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches further comprising: receiving an acknowledgement from each system component the subset of system components, wherein the acknowledgement indicates that the corresponding system component has processed the broadcast operation; and in response to receiving the acknowledgement from each system component, transmitting an acknowledgement to the first user process that the broadcast operation has been processed (see col. 18, lines 35-60, “At block 352, the configuration of the physical port, to which the packet is forwarded from a network device, is checked to determine whether the physical port is configured to operate as a centralized port that supports eport assignment techniques discussed above. If the port is not configured to operate as a centralized port, the flow proceeds to block 353 for processing the packet using cascade port processing techniques, legacy processing techniques, or other suitable processing techniques for example. Otherwise, if is determined that the port is configured to operate as a centralized port, the flow proceeds to block 354, at which the method 350 determines whether the source of the packet is a trunk. To this end, in an embodiment, the DSA tag of the packet is processed. If it is determined that the packet arrived via a trunk (i.e., a port configured to belong to the trunk), an eport identifier is generated at block 356 using the default port identifier of the port and the source trunk identifier specified in the DSA tag of the packet, for example. Otherwise, if it is determined that the packet did not arrive via a trunk, the flow proceeds to block 358, at which an eport identifier is generated using the default port identifier of the port, the identifier of the ingress device, and the physical port of the ingress device, according to an embodiment.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 8, Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches further comprising: receiving an indication that the broadcast operation has been processed by each system component included in the subset of system components, wherein transmitting the acknowledgement to the first user process is further in response to receiving the indication that the broadcast operation has been processed by each system component (see col. 4, lines 30-45 “For example, if a packet received at one of the physical ports 24 of the network device 14-1 is to be transmitted to one or more of the other physical ports 24 of the network device 14-1, the duplication of the packet is implemented in the network device 14-1. As another example, a packet transmitted to the network device 14-1 from the centralized packet processor 12 for transmission via more than one port of the network device 14-1 is duplicated at the network device 14-1, so that the centralized packet processor 12 does not transmit multiple copies of the packet to the network device 14-1. However, depending on the embodiment, decisions to duplicate a packet at a network device, as well as instructions therefor, are implemented at the centralized packet processor 12.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 9, Van Dyke does not expressly disclose, however, Safari teaches wherein: the sub-partition mask comprises a bit mask, and each bit included in the bit mask corresponds to a different system component included in the plurality of system components (see col 7, lines 35-45 “Membership in each stackable system 54 typically is limited to L network devices, in an embodiment. For example, network devices in the stackable system 54-1 address each other using a five-bit identifier, and accordingly the maximum number of network devices in the stackable system 54-1 is 32 (i.e., L=32)”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Van Dyke by adapting Safari for processing packets efficiently (see col. 45-60 of Van Dyke).
Claim 10, Van Dyke teaches wherein: a first bit included in the bit mask is in a first logic state when a system component corresponding to the first bit is included in the subset of system components, and the first bit included in the bit mask is in a second logic state when the system component corresponding to the first bit is excluded from the subset of system components (see “To the extent that a given client is subpartition aware (for example, a raster operations (ROP) client may be a subpartition-aware client) the arbiter 840 passes the mask list information on to state machine 850 and arranges for the generation of address control operations consistent with the data subpacket ordering required by the masks. At the same time write data can be supplied to a write data rotation element which operates on the principles described above so as to place the data from the selected client into an appropriate order for transmission to the memory partition whereby subpackets for each subpartition are paired together.”).
Claim 11, Van Dyke teaches further comprising: determining that the first bit included in the bit mask is in the first logic state; and converting the first bit into an identifier that identifies the system component corresponding to the first bit (see col. 4, lines 65-67, col 5, lines 1-15, “In one embodiment, memory controller 310 generates a 4 bit mask for each sub-partition For example, an A mask list has associated with it a mask field of elements 0, 3, 4 and 7 represented as A [xxxx] for memory transfer operations with the A subpartition. A B mask list has a mask field of elements 2, 1, 6, and 5 represented as B [yyyy] for memory transfer operations with the B subpartition. As an illustrative example, assume that the mask list generated by memory controller 310 for the A subpartition is A[1001] while the mask list generated for the B subpartition is B[1101], where 1 in each instance indicates the existence of a subpacket for that entity, then the subpartition transfer arrangement will take place in the following order. Transfer 0 will include A0 and B2. Transfer 1 would include A7 and B 1. The final data transfer would be for B5 alone since the A mask list does not identify a third subpacket. Since sub-partition A only accesses the subpackets A0, A3, A4, A7 and sub-partition B can only access subpackets B1, B2, B5, B6, only A and B accesses can be paired.”).
Claim 12, is an independent system claim which corresponds with claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In addition, Van Dyke teaches a system comprising: a memory including instructions; a first processor coupled to the memory (see col. 1, lines 15-30, “The memory controller 10 acts as a switch to determine which of several graphics processing clients 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 can access the memory storage array 22”).
Claim 13, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 4 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 5 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 6 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 17, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 8 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 9 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 10 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20, is a dependent system claim corresponding with method claim 11 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.Schena et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2024/0334311) teaches a plurality of end device identifiers arranged into a first list and a second list. The first list includes a plurality of target end device identifiers corresponding to a first group of wireless electronic devices for communicating with a central computing device. A filter list is generated having a plurality of filters such that each target end device identifier on the first list matches with exactly one filter of the filter list, and no end device identifiers on the second list match with any filter of the filter list. Electronic messages including the filters of the filter list are broadcast such that end device possessing an identifier from the first group receives and processes a message while no devices on the second accept any broadcast messages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights