DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on March 19, 2024, in which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending, all of which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement, filed on March 19, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Examiner however notes the presence of reference to Klejsa et al., (USPAT 10,553,244), which upon review and search, is actually U.S. Patent No. 10,553,224 (U.S. Patent No. 10,553,244 is actually a reference to Price et al.). Examiner has addressed this by striking through the reference to Price, making a note of the typo, and has included the reference to Klejsa in form PTO-892 for Applicant’s convenience.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutertre et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0197881 A1), hereinafter “Dutertre” in view of Woodworth et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0417147 A1), hereinafter “Woodworth”.
Regarding claim 1, Dutertre discloses a system (system 100) (Dutertre, FIG. 1A), comprising: a computer that includes a processor (as illustrated in FIG. 1A, path verifier 102 includes processing circuitry 104 which may include any one or more of a microprocessor, a controller, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or equivalent discrete or integrated logic circuitry. See also, FIG. 2, which illustrates computing device 200, also including processing circuitry 204 for executing at least a portion of path verifier 202) (Dutertre, FIGS. 1A and 2, paragraphs [0032], [0050] and [0052]) and a memory (further including storage device 230 used to store program instructions for execution by processing circuitry 204) (Dutertre, FIG. 2, paragraph [0056]), the memory including instructions executable by the processor to: identify a communications node, included in a network for a first computer network that includes network device nodes, that includes connectivity to an external computer network (wherein path verifier 102 (See again, FIG. 1A), and more particularly processing circuitry 104, of system 100 may verify whether all paths of a plurality of paths are equivalent up to an equivalence relation (e.g., commutativity) using data structure 110 (See also FIG. 1B). Processing circuitry 104 may perform a search to identify a plurality of paths from a source field (represented by a node of data structure 110) to a destination field (represented by another node of data structure 110). Dutertre teaches that the nodes 106 themselves may may be, e.g., a controller, a computer, a sensor, an appliance, or a mobile device, or alternatively, nodes 106 may be components of a larger system, such as a vehicle or distributed computing system. In addition, Dutertre teaches that computing device 200 (See again, FIG. 2), in one example, utilizes communication units 220 to communicate with external devices via one or more networks, such as one or more wired/wireless/mobile networks) (Dutertre, FIGS. 1A and 1B, paragraphs [0033], [0043] and [0053]); identify a source node included in the network device nodes (again, a plurality of paths are identified, which include source field) (Dutertre, paragraph [0043]); execute a non-recursive algorithm on a list of network paths in the first computer network that connect the source node to the communications node (wherein Dutertre further teaches executing a depth-first-search path computation algorithm on the identified paths) (Dutertre, paragraph [0043]). Dutertre does not explicitly disclose identifying, from the list of network paths, a preferred network path that includes a fewest number of nodes between the source node and the communications node; and communicating from the source node to the external computing network via the preferred network path and the communications node. However in an analogous art, Woodworth discloses identifying, from a list of network paths, a preferred network path that includes a fewest number of nodes between a source node and a communications node (wherein Woodworth at least suggests that to decrease latency, increase throughput, and reduce the amount of traffic being transmitted through a related network, a network will typically attempt to provide the content or communications from a network component that is separated by as little network infrastructure as possible from the requesting device (e.g., so that the path with the fewest number of network elements and shortest distance are utilized between the server and the end user)) (Woodworth, paragraph [0003]); and communicating from the source node to an external computing network via the preferred network path and the communications node (wherein again, the route that utilizes the least number of network elements and shortest communication distance to provide content to an end user device may be the optimal or “best” transmission path. As such, Woodworth discloses, teaches and/or suggests communicating from a source node (in this case a server) to an external computing network (i.e., the Internet) via the preferred or “best” path and the communications node (i.e., the network element(s)) along that path) (Woodworth, paragraph [0004]). Dutertre and Woodworth are analogous art, because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, routing performance and path management in communication systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dutertre and Woodworth before him or her, to modify the system of Dutertre to include the additional limitations of identifying, from a list of network paths, a preferred network path that includes a fewest number of nodes between a source node and a communications node; and communicating from the source node to an external computing network via the preferred network path and the communications node, as disclosed in Woodworth, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system with decreased latency, increased throughput, and a reduction in the amount of traffic being transmitted through a related network (See Wells, paragraph [0003]). This method of improving the architecture of Dutertre was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Woodworth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dutertre with Woodworth to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first computer network includes a vehicle communications system that can include one or more of a controller area network and an ethernet network (again, nodes 106 may be components of a larger system, such as a vehicle or distributed computing system. In addition, an Ethernet network is suggested, as computing device 200 of FIG. 2 can be equipped with an Ethernet card) (Dutertre, FIGS. 1A and 2, paragraphs [0033] and [0053]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the list of nodes includes the communications node and a second communications node that includes connectivity to the external computer network (again, computing device 200 includes one or more communication units 220 to communicate with external devices via one or more networks, such as one or more wired/wireless/mobile networks. In addition, FIG. 7 illustrates an example where the nodes 106 themselves are airplanes. In that particular example, an airplane 740A may exchange, via a distributed network 750, data with airplanes 740B, 740C) (Dutertre, FIGS. 2 and 7, paragraphs [0053] and [0115]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the non-recursive algorithm includes a depth first search (again, executing a depth-first-search path computation algorithm on the identified paths) (Dutertre, paragraph [0043). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the communications node includes a plurality of types of connectivity to the external computer network (at least impliedly, as the nodes 106 can also be a mobile device, which will have a Wi-Fi interface, as well as a cellular wireless (e.g., 3G, 4G, 5G) interface) (Dutertre, FIG. 1, paragraph [0033]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the non-recursive algorithm includes a first stack that includes the network device nodes (See code in Table 6, which illustrates the implementation of the depth-first exploration of FIG. 5. In particular, the code indicates that a “while loop” is performed as long as the stack is empty, which continues to add source nodes) (Dutertre, Table 6). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the non-recursive algorithm includes a second stack that includes lists of network device nodes (See again, code in Table 6, also including the names of the nodes in the stacks) (Dutertre, Table 6). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first network includes acyclic graphs and cyclic graphs (See FIGS. 4 and 5. In particular, based on Applicant’s description, at paragraph [0008], which recites that “topology can be cyclic, where two nodes can be connected by more than one path, or acyclic, where nodes of the network are connected by only one path,” (Recited from paragraph [0008] of instant Specification) – FIG. 4 meets the criteria of an acyclic graph, having each of the nodes connected by independent paths, while FIG. 5 illustrates an cyclic graph, as the path to node 512A back to itself is cyclic via node 512C) (Dutertre, FIGS. 4 and 5). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first computer network is included in a vehicle (again, nodes 106 may be components of a larger system, such as a vehicle or distributed computing system) (Dutertre, FIG. 1, paragraph [0033]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 1 is also applied to claim 12.
Claims 13-15, 17 and 18 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 1-3, 5 and 6, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claims 4, 7, 8, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutertre-Woodworth and further in view of Magzimof et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0389387 A1), hereinafter “Magzimof”.
As to claim 4, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the external computer network includes the Internet. However in an analogous art, Magzimof discloses wherein an external computer network includes the Internet (wherein Magzimof discloses that a plurality of networks 840 (See FIG. 8) represents communication pathways between vehicles 802, remote support terminals 810, and the remote support server 820. Magzimof teaches that in one embodiment, the networks 840 use standard communications technologies and/or protocols and can include the Internet) (Magzimof, FIG. 8, paragraph [0106]). Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof are analogous art, because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, routing performance and path management in communication systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof before him or her, to modify the system of Dutertre-Woodworth to include the additional limitation of wherein an external computer network includes the Internet, as disclosed in Magzimof, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that enabled broader reach through a greater number of communications technologies and/or protocols (See Magzimof, paragraph [0106]). This method of improving the architecture of Dutertre-Woodworth was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Magzimof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth with Magzimof to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses the system of claim 6, but does not expressly disclose wherein determining the communications node that includes connectivity to the external computer network includes determining that a specified type of connectivity is available for communication. In an analogous art, however, Dutertre-Woodworth discloses wherein determining a communications node that includes connectivity to an external computer network includes determining that a specified type of connectivity is available for communication (See FIG. 1. In particular, communication interfaces 124 receive the encoded data streams 106 and output the encoded data streams 106 as a set of transmit signals 108 to the communication channels 110 in accordance with the assignments received from the orchestrator 126. The communication channels 110 may each at least partially include a wireless network comprising one or more of a cellular network, a WiFi network, low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network, a directional microwave radio beam connection, or any other wireless communication method or combination thereof. Furthermore, Magzimof teaches that the different communication channels 110 may each differ in at least one respect such that transmission performance of the different communication channels 110 may vary. For example, the different communication channels 110 may utilize different types of networks or different combinations of network types, networks operated by different carriers, networks utilizing different network infrastructure, networks operating according to different network parameters, or networks having other differences that cause performance to vary from each other under different operating conditions. A set of received data streams 110 are received at a receiver 140. Due to differences in the communication channels 110 and/or differences in the encodings used in different data streams 106, Magzimof teaches that a set of received data streams 110 corresponding to redundant data from the same original data source 102 may arrive at the receiver 110 with different latency and/or quality parameters. Furthermore, the parameters affecting the timing or quality of the received streams on the different channels may change over time based on, e.g., movement of the transmitter 120, interference, congestion, or other factors. The receiver 140 selects between received streams 110 corresponding to the same complementary set to generate output streams 112 which may each correspond to one of the original data streams 104. For example, within each complementary set, the receiver 140 may select the received stream 110 arriving with lowest latency. Alternatively, for the set of data streams within a complementary set, the receive may select the received stream 110 having a highest quality metric. As further illustrated in FIG. 8, Magzimof discloses a block diagram of a vehicle environment 800 for a teleoperation or other remote support application in which the described low latency multi-path communication system may be used. The vehicle environment 800 includes a plurality of vehicles 802, a remote support server 820 coupled to one or more remote support terminals 810, and one or more networks 840 (which again, can include the Internet) comprising network devices 845. For providing video or other telemetry data from the vehicle 802 to the remote support server 820 the vehicle 802 may operate as a transmitter 120 while the remote support server 820 operates as a receiver 140, with the external network/Internet in between) (Magzimof, FIGS. 1 and 8, paragraphs [0024], [0025] and [0097]). Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof are analogous art, because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, routing performance and path management in communication systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof before him or her, to modify the system of Dutertre-Woodworth to include the additional limitation of wherein determining the communications node that includes connectivity to the external computer network includes determining that a specified type of connectivity is available for communication, as disclosed in Magzimof, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that optimized the communication modality based on constantly evolving factors and variations in network performance (See Magzimof, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). This method of improving the architecture of Dutertre-Woodworth was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Magzimof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth with Magzimof to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Dutertre-Woodworth-Magzimof discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the types of connectivity to the external computer network include Wi-Fi connectivity, cellular connectivity, and wired connectivity (again, networks include wireless network comprising one or more of a cellular network, a WiFi network, low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network, as well as a direct wired connection) (Magzimof, paragraphs [0024] and [0103]). Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof are analogous art, because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, routing performance and path management in communication systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth and Magzimof before him or her, to modify the system of Dutertre-Woodworth to include the additional limitation of wherein the types of connectivity to the external computer network include Wi-Fi connectivity, cellular connectivity, and wired connectivity, as disclosed in Magzimof, with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that optimized the communication modality based on constantly evolving factors and variations in network performance (See Magzimof, paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). This method of improving the architecture of Dutertre-Woodworth was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Magzimof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Dutertre-Woodworth with Magzimof to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 4, 7 and 8, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
9. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For instance, Klejsa (USPAT 10,553,224) discloses a system and method for inter-channel encoding. The method comprises determining a basic graph comprising the N channels as nodes and comprising directed edges between at least some of the N channels. Furthermore, the method comprises determining an inter-channel coding graph from the basic graph, such that the inter-channel coding graph is a directed acyclic graph, and such that a cumulated a cumulated cost of the signals of the nodes of the inter-channel coding graph is reduced (See Abstract). LIN (USPGPUB 2022/0097736) discloses a vehicle control method and apparatus, a storage medium and an electronic device. The method comprises: acquiring real-time road condition information about a target vehicle; when the real-time road condition information indicates that the target vehicle arrives at the target intersection, acquiring first vehicle state information about the target vehicle in a current travelling state and second vehicle state information about an object vehicle in a region where the target intersection is located in the current travelling state, wherein the object vehicle comprises an environment vehicle passing through the target intersection and a virtual vehicle configured for a current observation field of view of the target vehicle; inputting first vehicle state information and second vehicle state information into a vehicle motion prediction model to obtain a prediction result, wherein the vehicle motion model is used for predicting a driving motion of a vehicle in a next control cycle based on vehicle state information about the vehicle in a current control cycle; controlling the target vehicle to perform the target running action according to the prediction result (See Abstract). Zhou (USPAT 11,757,768) discloses a system and method of determining flow paths of packets through the nodes of a network. A search engine queries a network model for behavior of the entire network, such as data flow, based on combinations of multiple network elements. The search engine provides the state information and/or predicted behavior of the network by searching network objects in a graph-based model or a network state database that satisfy constraints given in a search query. The search engine provides the state information and/or predicted behavior based on regular-expression or plain language search expressions that do not provide packet header information. The search engine parses such search expression into a sequence of atoms that encode forwarding paths of interest to the user. A flow path through the modeled network can be generated dynamically, within the context of the search queries (See Abstract). Wright (USPGPUB 2024/0323660) discloses intelligent vehicle communications (comm) systems provisioning enhanced vehicle-to-everything (V2X) wireless mesh network (WMN) hop propagation, methods for making/using such systems, and vehicles equipped with such systems. A method of controlling operation of a host vehicle includes a vehicle controller determining the host vehicle is incapacitated and then detecting the host vehicle’s wireless comm device is unable to connect to a cellular or satellite communications system. Responsive to such insufficient connectivity, the controller broadcasts a V2X WMN distress message containing data specific to the host vehicle and data specific to the host vehicle’s incapacitating event. Upon receipt of the distress message, a recipient vehicle’s controller determines if a prior distress message for the incapacitating vehicle event was previously received and if the distress message exceeds any preset multi-hop restrictions. If the answer is yes to either, the resident controller disables retransmission of the distress message to other recipient nodes over the WMN (See Abstract).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441