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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is a response to an application filed on 04/22/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 04/22/2024 and 09/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 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.
Claim 8 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions comprising: creating a first packet and a second packet … receiving the first packet by a first link and the second packet by a second link; and forwarding the first packet from the first link and the second packet from the second link.”
The claim language suggests that a single entity performs the method of both creating the first and second packets, and receiving the first and second packets. It is unclear how the packets created by the entity can also be received by the entity via links as recited in the claim. The claim does not recite any intervening device transmitting the packets back to the entity that created them, nor does the claim specify that the packets are first transmitted through the links before being received. Therefore, claim 8 is rendered indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “a first processing unit … operative to: create a first packet and a second packet … receive the first packet by a first link and the second packet by a second link; and forward the first packet from the first link and the second packet from the second link.
The claim requires that a single processing unit both creates the first and second packets, and receive the first and second packets. It is unclear how the packets created by the processing unit can also be received by the processing unit via links as recited in the claim. The claim does not recite any intervening device transmitting the packets back to the processing unit that created them, nor does the claim specify that the packets are first transmitted through the links before being received. Therefore, claim 15 is rendered indefinite.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are dependent from claims 8 and 15, and therefore contain the same indefinite language. As a result, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0107213), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method comprising:
creating a first packet and a second packet, the first packet and the second packet comprising replicants of one another, wherein the first packet and the second packet comprise a sequence number (Park, Fig. 16, [0294]-[0295]: UPF duplicates a packet from data network/DN and assigns the same GTP-U sequence number to them);
receiving the first packet by a first link and the second packet by a second link (Park, Fig. 16, [0295]: the duplicated packets are received separately by I-UPF1 via N( Tunnel 1 (first link) and I-UPF2 via N9 Tunnel 2 (second link)); and
forwarding the first packet from the first link and the second packet from the second link (Park, Fig. 16, [0295]: I-UPF1 and I-UPF2 forward the packets with the same GTP-U sequence number (i.e., first and second packets) via N3 Tunnel 1 (first link) and N3 Tunnel 2 (second link), respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses wherein creating the first packet and the second packet is performed on a wireless network (Park, [0285]).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses further comprising receiving, by a computing device, the first packet and the second packet (Park, [0295]: an access node (computing device) receives the packets with the same GTP-U sequence number (i.e., first and second packets) from the I-UPFs).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses further comprising eliminating one of the first packet and the second packet based on the sequence number (Park, [0295]: the access node eliminates the duplicated packet based on the GTP-U sequence number).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses further comprising resequencing, within a packet stream, one of the first packet and the second packet that was not eliminated based on the sequence number (Park, [0364]: “reorder packets … identify and discard … arriving at the later time to remove duplication”).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Park discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (Park, Fig. 16: UPFs).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 13 and 14, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 3, 4, 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore, Park discloses a system comprising: a first memory storage; and a first processing unit coupled to the first memory storage, wherein the first processing unit is operative to (Park, Fig. 16: UPFs).
Regarding claims 17, 18 and 20, the limitations have been addressed in the rejections of claims 3, 4 and 6, respectively.
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 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.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Cachin et al. (US 2014/0177477), hereinafter Cachin.
Regarding claim 2, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein creating the first packet and the second packet is performed on an Ethernet network.
However, Cachin discloses wherein creating the first packet and the second packet is performed on an Ethernet network (Cachin, [0022]: duplication of Ethernet traffic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park and Cachin before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the packet duplication and sequence number duplicate elimination mechanism as taught by Park, to be implemented within an Ethernet network environment as taught by Cachin. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve fault tolerance and seamless failover in Ethernet networks.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Roskind et al. (US 8,964,543), hereinafter Roskind.
Regarding claim 7, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device comprises a client device.
However, Roskind discloses wherein the computing device comprises a client device (Roskind, col 6, ln 43-58: client receives and discards duplicate packets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Park and Roskind before him or her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a system that transmits duplicate packets across multiple links and eliminates duplicate packets at an access node as taught by Park, to include transmitting duplicate packets to a client device and allowing the client device to receive and discard duplicate packets as taught by Roskind. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce processing overhead at intermediate network nodes.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Nagarajan et al. (US 2004/0062248) discloses a system in which a source node creates duplicate packets containing the same sequence numbers and transmits the packets over two different paths to a destination node. The destination node receives the duplicated packets and evaluates their sequence numbers to determine whether to accept or discard duplicates (see [0021]-[0024], [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESA M KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)431-0704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, Umar Cheema can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
/LESA M KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458