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 .
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process the basis for this rejection is recited below.
The following rejection finds basis in the most recently issued guidance published in the Federal Register on 7 January 2019 entitled “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, available at <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance>. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance applies the subject matter eligibility test as described within recently revised MPEP § 2106, revision 08.2017, namely, the “Alice/Mayo test” or “Mayo test” as laid out by the Supreme Court as a framework for determining claimed subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). Note that the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance also supersedes all versions of the USPTO's “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas” (first issued in July 2015 and updated most recently in July 2018).
A. Claim 6 is analyzed according to SME flowchart. Claim 6 is directed to an electronic device performing comprising a processor and a memory including instructions. Claim 6 is directed to an eligible category and is a machine. According to Claim 6, the electronic device obtaining a plurality of transmission data in a network of a distributed system. Further descriptive characteristics includes implemented as a ring topology or a linear topology. The format of the transmission data is a like a packet, which includes types of data comprising data to be transmitted, a sending node, and a receiving node. Calculating the transmission length for each of transmission data which is defined as the minimum number of hops (nodes) between the send node and the receive node. The electronic device divides the transmission data into multiple sets based on minimum number of hops of the transmission data each of the sets. (The transmission lengths of at least one transmission data in each set is equal.) Determining the sequence order of transmission of the plurality of sets. The electronic device of 6 fits one of the statutory categories and claim 6 qualifies as a machine.
Dependent claim 7, conditional limitations when ring topology, further calculation of number of hops is half length of ring topology, transmission direction clockwise or counterclockwise. Then transmitting according to direction. Dependent claim 8, conditional limitation when ring topology of a plurality of requests, organizing into a first subset and a second subset. Consider the first subset to be transmitted in a clockwise direction or counterclockwise direction. Consider the second subset to be transmitting in the other direction. Dependent claim 9, conditional limitation of ring topology, calculation of number of nodes between in clockwise directions (first number) and determining number of nodes in counterclockwise direction (second number). Based on lower number of comparison of the first number and second number, labeling the lesser number as the target number. Dependent claim 10, conditions for the network of the transmission data, for any two nodes, there is first transmission data and second transmission data. For the first transmission data, there is a send node and receive node corresponding to the two nodes. And for the second transmission data the send node is the second node and the receive node is the first node.
According to Step 1 of SME flowchart, claim 1 is the method comprises steps corresponding to operations of the electronic device of claim 6. Claim 1 fits at least one of the categories and claim 1 qualifies as a process. The process steps of claim 1 are rejected on a similar rationale as claim 6 above.
According to Step 1 of SME flowchart, claim 11 is a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions for performing steps. Claim 11 fits at least one of the categories and claim 11 qualifies as a process. Claims 11 is rejected similar to claim 6 above.
B. When considering step 2A, prong 1, claim 6 recites an abstract idea. The type of abstract is categorized under a mental process. The electronic device of claim 6 is directed to a mental process of organizing items represented as plurality of transmission data and recites memory for storing and a processor for executing instructions. Using mental process calculates the target number of hops (nodes) between a send node and a receive node which is a minimum number of hops. Then using the mental process partitioning the transmission data into further a plurality of sets wherein at least one least one of transmission data in each set is based on at least one equal number of hops. Ordering the plurality of sets into sequence for transmission. And plan to send transmission data of each in parallel.
With respect to dependent claim 7, conditional to being a ring network and calculate transmission length equal to half of the number of hops of ring network. Determine clockwise or counterclockwise directions and then sending transmission data counterclockwise, or counterclockwise to destination node.
With respect to dependent claim 8, for partitioning set into a first subset and a second subset, with not adjacent sending nodes. Determine transmissions direction in first subset or counterclockwise. And the second subset of direction is different than the first subset.
With respect to dependent claim 9, conditional to ring network, determining number of hops in clockwise direction as a first number and determining number of hops in counterclockwise directions as second number, comparing the first number to the second number. The transmission length is a mental process, the direction of transmission and the start node and stop node of the transmission does not impact implementation of the mental process.
With respect to dependent claim 10, any two nodes of the plural of nodes, of the two nodes, node one is the send node and node two is the receive node. Conversely, for a second transmission data node two is the send node and node one is the receive node.
With respect to dependent claims 6-10, the minimum number of hops, the clockwise direction or counterclockwise direction does not impact implementation of the mental process.
According to Step 2A, step 1 of SME flowchart, claims 2-5 is a method comprises steps similar to the operations of the claims 7-10. The steps of claims 2-5 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
According to Step 2A, step 1 of SME flowchart, claim 12-15 is a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions for performing steps. The steps of claims 12-15 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
C. The additional features of claim 6 are considered in step 2A, prong 2. The additional features of claim 6 are considered in step 2A, prong 2. The additional features of claim 6 are considered for determination of whether the claims are integrated in a practical application. The first addition feature is the implementation in an electronic device, including a “memory” and a “processor” executing instructions from “the memory”. The electronic device is used as a tool for implementing the functions claimed but does not to make an improvement to computer technology. The second additional limitation is calculating minimum number of hops. The calculation of the minimum number hops is not an improvement in computer technology. The network layout is not an improvement is computer technology. Thus, claim 6 fails to recite additional features to integrate into a practical application in a technological environment or field of use. Dependent claim 7, implements in a ring network and half number of hops of ring network is minimum number of hops. Transmitting in clockwise direction or counterclockwise direction is not implementation in practical application. Dependent claim 8, not adjacent nodes and transmitting clockwise direction or counterclockwise direction is not is not an implementation in practical application. Dependent claim 9 incorporate a ring network and first number of hops in clockwise direction and second number of hops in the counterclockwise direction. Clockwise direction or counterclockwise based on lower of first number and second number is not an implementation in practical application. Dependent claim 10, any two nodes of the ring network, the role sending node and receive node. Using clockwise direction for transmission or counterclockwise direction for transmission is not an implementation in practical application.
According to Step 2A, prong 2 of SME flowchart, claims 2-5 is a method comprises steps similar to the operations of the claims 7-10. The steps of claims 2-5 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
According to Step 2A, Step 2 of SME flowchart, claim 12-15 is a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions for performing steps. The steps of claims 12-15 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
D. The additional limitations of claim 6 are considered in Step 2B. Claim 6 does not recite additional limitations that amount to more than the judicial exception. In claim 6, implementation in a linear topology or ring topology is not an improvement to computer network technology. Features such as data, send node, receive node are not an improvement to protocols or computer network topology. The transmission length as the number of hops is not an improvement to computer technology. Routing in clockwise or counterclockwise directions of as recited is not an improvement in computer technology. For dependent claim 7, calculating half of the length of ring network and transmitting clockwise or counterclockwise is not an improvement to computer technology. For dependent claim 8, partitioning to a set to a first subset and second subset and transmitting in clockwise or counterclockwise is not an improvement to computer technology. For dependent claim 9, number of hops for transmission in clockwise direction and number of nodes in the counterclockwise direction and comparing the numbers to choose is not an improvement to computer technology. For dependent claim 10, choosing any two nodes and providing the nodes as source and destination or destination and source respectively is not an improvement to computer network technology.
According to Step 2B, of SME flowchart, claims 2-5 is a method comprises steps similar to the operations of the claims 7-10. The steps of claims 2-5 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
According to Step 2B, of SME flowchart, claim 12-15 is a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions for performing steps. The steps of claims 12-15 are similar to the operations of claims 7-10 and are rejected on a similar rationale.
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 1-5 and 11-15 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. With reference to MPEP 2111.04. The methods and computer readable medium of claims 1-5 and 11-15 respectively include conditional limitations using the clause “when”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a conditional limitation in a method is that the limitations associated with the condition are not satisfied the limitation need not be performed.
For applicant’s reference: MPEP 2111.04 “See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al., US 20170251420 A1 (hereafter referred to as Ji) in view of Sakai et al., US 20190342723 A1 (hereafter referred to as Sakai).
Claim 6, Ji teaches an electronic device (“source device”), comprising:
at least one processor (p. 56, “and reside on multiple computers…”); and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (p. 56, “dedicated servers or virtual servers associated with non-transitory computer-readable medium, collectively remote servers”); wherein the memory stores instructions for:
obtaining a plurality of data transmission requests in a distributed system (p. 36, “… the source node 12 can stream data packets to the destination node 14 using a direct path 20 ....” And p. 23, “the source node partitions a first set of data packets into data blocks, duplicates the data blocks into first and second data blocks..”), wherein the distributed system comprises a plurality of nodes (p. 19, “a source node operatively coupled to a hybrid wireless mesh network, a destination node operatively coupled to the hybrid wireless mesh network, and an overlay network associated with the hybrid wireless mesh network. The overlay network includes at least one potential relay node operatively coupled to the hybrid wireless mesh network …”), and wherein the plurality of nodes constitutes a ring topology or a linear topology (p. 36, “the source node 12 can stream data packets to the destination node 14 using a direct path 20.” “The source node 12 also can identify secondary paths 22, 24 for sending data packets to selected potential relay nodes (PRNs) 16, 18.” Linear topology implemented a path from source node to destination node thru corresponding relay nodes (PRNs).), and
wherein each of the plurality of data transmission requests includes data to be transmitted (p. 23, “… the source node partitions the data packets into data blocks …”), a data sending node (p. 23, “ … the source node … ), and a data receiving node (p. 23, “… transmits the tagged data blocks to the destination node…”);
for each of the plurality of data transmission requests, determining a target transmission length of the data transmission request, which indicates a minimum value of a number of nodes between the data sending node and the data receiving node of the data transmission request (p. 41, “Once a new PRN is identified, the source node 12 preferably sends a special measurement packet toward the PRN which retransmits it to the destination node 14. Quality characteristics, such as end-to-end delay, jitter (variance of delay), throughput, hop count, packet loss rate, out of order rate, and the like, are taken during the forwarding of this packet. If the source node 12 is satisfied with the forwarding quality, the source node 12 activates the selected PRN to be used as RN and a new sub-data stream is created to go through it.” And p. 42, “the relaying of data packets is preferably accomplished with the use of double headers on these data packets. Preferably, the outer header is addressed to the RN and the inner header is addressed to the destination node.”);
dividing the plurality of data transmission requests into a plurality of sets (p. 51, “the source node 12 partitions an input stream of data packets 30 into blocks 32-46 that are tagged with sequential identifiers. In the FIG. 2 example, the sequential identifiers are numbered 1 through 8.”) based on the target transmission length of each of the plurality of data transmission requests (p. 41, “the source node 12 preferably sends a special measurement packet toward the PRN which retransmits it to the destination node 14. Quality characteristics, such as end-to-end delay, jitter (variance of delay), throughput, hop count, packet loss rate, out of order rate, and the like, are taken during the forwarding of this packet.” And p. 41, “If the source node 12 is satisfied with the forwarding quality, the source node 12 activates the selected PRN to be used as RN and a new sub-data stream is created to go through it. As such, the source and destination nodes 12, 14, respectively, actively measure the quality of the transmission performed by each relay node 16, 18. The forwarding qualities of activated RNs are measured using the same means. If a particular relay node quality drops below a certain limit, the source node 12 can deactivate the particular relay node by simply stopping the transmission of send packets to this relay node.”), wherein the target transmission lengths of at least one data transmission request included in each set of the plurality of sets are equal (); and
determining a sequence constituted by the plurality of sets to sequentially perform a data transmission operation for each of the plurality of sets (p. 52, “In one preferred embodiment, the source node 12 preferably sends odd numbered blocks 32-38 in sub-stream-1 50 and even numbered blocks 40-46 in sub-stream-2 52. At the destination node 14, the received blocks over both sub-streams 50, 52 are merged together in sequence to reconstruct the input data stream 30.”),
wherein the data transmission operation includes: transmitting the data to be transmitted in each data transmission request from the data sending node of the data transmission request to the data receiving node of the data transmission request (p. 52, “In one preferred embodiment, the source node 12 preferably sends odd numbered blocks 32-38 in sub-stream-1 50 and even numbered blocks 40-46 in sub-stream-2 52. At the destination node 14, the received blocks over both sub-streams 50, 52 are merged together in sequence to reconstruct the input data stream 30.” And p. 53, “the source node duplicates each of the blocks 32-46 and sends one copy over each sub-stream 50, 52. At the receiving end, duplicated blocks are dropped by the destination node 14.”). Ji does not specifically teach wherein the data to be transmitted in the data transmission request included in each set is transmitted in parallel. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches wherein the data to be transmitted in the data transmission request included in each set is transmitted in parallel (p. 49, “Specifically, the base station 100 transmits the same multicast frame to the wireless terminals 200A to 200F belonging to the same multicast group.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ji by integrating sending set of packets in parallel from Sakai and thereby leverage efficient usage of network resources and improve system throughput (Sakai, p. 43).
Claim 7, Ji-Sakai teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein, when the plurality of nodes constitutes a ring topology, performing the data transmission operation for each of the plurality of sets (conditional limitation dependent on ring network topology) comprises:
in response to determining that the target transmission length of the data transmission request included in the set is half of the total length of the ring topology, for each of the at least one data transmission request, determining a data transmission direction of the data transmission request (functions tied to optional limitations), wherein the data transmission direction comprises a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction; and transmitting, along the determined data transmission direction (functions tied to optional limitations), the data to be transmitted in the data transmission request from the data sending node of the data transmission request to the data receiving node of the data transmission request (functions tied to optional limitations).
Claim 8, Ji-Sakai teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein determining the data transmission direction of the data transmission request (conditional limitation dependent on ring network topology) comprises:
in response to determining that a set comprises a plurality of data transmission requests, dividing the plurality of data transmission requests included in the set into a first subset and a second subset, wherein the data sending nodes in any two data transmission requests of the same subset are not adjacent nodes (functions tied to optional limitations); determining that the data transmission direction of data transmission request included in the first subset is a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction (functions tied to optional limitations); and determining that the data transmission direction of data transmission request included in the second subset is a direction different from the data transmission direction of the first subset (functions tied to optional limitations).
Claim 9, Ji-Sakai teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, when the plurality of nodes constitutes a ring topology (conditional limitation dependent on ring network topology), determining, for each of the plurality of data transmission requests, the target transmission length of the data transmission request comprises:
determining the number of nodes between the data sending node of the data transmission request and the data receiving node of the data transmission request in the ring topology in a clockwise direction, and recording the number of nodes as a first value (functions tied to optional limitations); determining the number of nodes between the data sending node of the data transmission request and the data receiving node of the data transmission request in the ring topology in a counterclockwise direction, and recording the number of nodes as a second value (functions tied to optional limitations); and determining the smaller value of the first value and the second value as the target transmission length (functions tied to optional limitations).
Claim 10, Ji-Sakai teaches the electronic device according to claim 6, wherein the plurality of data transmission requests satisfies the following conditions:
for any two nodes of the plurality of nodes, there exists a first data transmission request and a second data transmission request, wherein the data sending node of the first data transmission request is a first node of the two nodes, the data receiving node of the first data transmission request is a second node of the two nodes (Ji, p. 19, “The overlay network includes at least one potential relay node operatively coupled to the hybrid wireless mesh network, wherein data packets are transmitted along a first path from the source node to the destination node in the hybrid wireless mesh network, and wherein data packets are transmitted along a second path from the source node through the at least one potential relay node to the destination node.”), and wherein the data sending node of the second data transmission request is the second node, and the data receiving node of the second data transmission request is the first node (Ji, initiating the stream from another location, p. 36, “The source node 12 [destination 14] also can identify secondary paths 22, 24 for sending data packets to selected potential relay nodes (PRNs) 16, 18. PRNs 16, 18 then relay these data packets to the destination node 14. [source node 12]”).
Claims 1-5 is a method performing steps similar to the operations of the system of claims 6-10 above. Claims 1-5 are rejected on a similar rationale.
Claims 11-15 is a non-transient computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions for performing steps similar to the operations of the system of claims 6-10 above. Claims 11-15 are rejected on a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al., US 20220337505 A1, teaches for a 4-node network satisfying the ring network architecture, if the shortest path first algorithm is used to implement load balancing, a transmission path of traffic (that is, a group of packets) sent from the source node 301 to the destination node 302 is 301−>302, a transmission path of traffic sent from the source node 301 to the destination node 303 is 301−>303, and a transmission path of traffic sent from the source node 301 to the destination node 304 is 301−>304.
Narasimhan et al., US 20210258243 A1, teaches a new data path group (e.g., a new NDC) can be formed in response to formation of a data link between a first device and a second device. The device that initiates the formation of the data link (or the formation of the new data group) can be configured as the anchor device and the other device can configure a current hop count to be equal to unity.
Rozenboim, US 20210160097 A1, teaches in accordance with an embodiment, within the virtual network 810, a partial mesh, multi-dimensional ring-lattice 815 can be provisioned by the control plane 805. This multi-dimensional ring-lattice can comprise a few permanent tunnels in each bridge, by using other bridges as intermediaries, is capable of delivering a packet to any other bridge belonging to the same virtual network. This partially-connected network of permanent tunnels can then serve as a conduit for multicast traffic and for route discovery.
Guo et al.., US 20170264532 A1, teaches The IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is a routing protocol developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The RPL organizes nodes of network into a tree-like topology called the Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph (DODAG). There are four types of routers in H-RPL: upward router, non-storing router, storing router and multicast storing router.
Huang et al., US 20170026282 A1, teaches embodiments of the disclosure can permit configuration of data path groups (e.g., NDC data clusters) in wireless networks, including generation of data path groups and/or removal of other data path groups. In some embodiments, hop count between devices can be signaled—e.g., information indicative of the hop count can be transmitted—between devices associated with a data path group and can be retained (persistently or temporarily, for example) at each of such devices.
Ramanujam et al., US 20120195314 A1, teaches an apparatus comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of links connecting the nodes in a ring topology, wherein a first node from among the plurality of nodes is coupled to a first link from among the plurality of links, wherein the first link comprises a plurality of virtual channels, and wherein each of the plurality of virtual channels is assigned to provide service to a unique one of the plurality of nodes.
Chen et al., US 20060104270 A1, teaches at least a subset of nodes 102-132 may implement the hierarchical-fanning transmission protocol for broadcasting and/or multicasting a datagram between a source (e.g., 102) and a destination (e.g., two or more of 104-132) in an efficient (e.g., minimum) number of hops. The hierarchical fanning transmission protocol may be beneficially implemented in any of a number of network topologies to reduce, perhaps to a minimum, the number of hops required to complete broadcast or multicast operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453