DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 03/21/2024, claims 12-21 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/21/2024 has been placed in the application file, and the information referred therein has been considered as to the merits.
Objection to the Drawings
Drawings Figures 1-3 and 5 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a).
Figures 1-3 and 5 illustrate only empty blocks and/or generalized flowchart elements without providing sufficient detail regarding the components represented therein. The blocks are not labeled with adequate descriptive identifiers, nor do the figures depict the structural elements, interconnections, or functional relationships necessary to understand the invention.
Patent drawings are required to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). Where block diagrams or flowcharts are used, the blocks must be clearly labeled and sufficiently detailed so that one of ordinary skill in the art can understand the components being illustrated and how they cooperate to perform the disclosed functions.
In the present application, Figures 1-3 and 5 merely depict generic blocks and/or process steps without identifying the specific components, circuitry, modules, or structural elements corresponding to the claimed features. As such, the drawings do not adequately illustrate the invention as described and claimed. Accordingly, corrected drawing figures are required that clearly identify and depict the relevant components and their interrelationships consistent with the written description and the claims.
35 U.S.C. 112(f): Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 21 and 22 recite "A track-bound vehicle/system for controlling…comprising: a calculation facility configured to assign the data…; and a bandwidth control facility configured to determine a class bandwidth…", and thus the claim has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “facility” coupled with functional language “to assign the data and to determine a class bandwidth” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In view of the specification, the component 123 of figure 1 seems to perform the process of assigning the data to be transmitted and determining a class bandwidth provided for the transmission executed by a calculation facility.
Similarly, the component 33 of figure 3 seems to perform the process of controlling bandwidth BB from the bandwidth monitoring facility. See ¶ [0039], ¶ [0042], and ¶ [0043] under the US publication.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “facility” as simply a substitute for the term "means for' because "facility" would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function (see MPEP 2181(I.)).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Rejection Under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph after being invoked under 112 f (sixth)
Claims 21-22 are further 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.
Claims 21 and 22 recite:
“A track-bound vehicle/system for controlling … comprising:
a calculation facility configured to assign the data …; and a bandwidth control facility configured to determine a class bandwidth …”
The claim limitations “calculation facility configured to assign the data” and “bandwidth control facility configured to determine a class bandwidth” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph).
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner notes the following potential disclosures:
Component 123 of Figure 1 appears to be associated with assigning data to be transmitted and determining a class bandwidth for transmission. See, e.g., paragraphs [0039], [0042], and [0043] of the published application.
Component 33 of Figure 3 appears to be associated with controlling bandwidth (BB) from a bandwidth monitoring facility.
However, the specification does not clearly link or associate these components with the specific claimed functions in a manner sufficient to satisfy § 112(f). The written description fails to clearly identify the structure that performs the claimed functions of (1) assigning the data and (2) determining a class bandwidth, as recited in claims 21 and 22. See MPEP § 2181, subsection II. Furthermore, the disclosed components (e.g., components 123 and 33) are described at a high level of generality and do not provide sufficient structural detail—such as specific hardware, circuitry, or an algorithm (if implemented in software)—for performing the claimed functions. In the absence of clearly linked corresponding structure, the scope of the claims cannot be determined.
Accordingly, claims 21 and 22 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (pre-AIA § 112, second paragraph), because the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed § 112(f) limitations. It is recommended that the claim language be amended such that the exact meaning of the above quoted limitation is clear. For the examination, Examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddle et al. (US 2002/0143939 A1) in view of YOO et al. (US 2010/0008379 A1).
Regarding claim 12; Riddle teaches a method for controlling a transmission of data between a track- bound vehicle and a land-based facility (See Fig. 1B, to configure traffic classes and service aggregates bundle traffic to provide a convenience to the user (mobile) and the server (land based station). ¶ [0027]), the method comprising:
assigning the data to be transmitted in each case to one of a plurality off classes of traffic (See Fig. 3: A traffic tree 302 is provided in which new traffic will be discovered under a particular member class node. The traffic tree may have a hierarchy of nodes (Class A, B C) and corresponding subnodes under the nodes. A traffic classifier 304 detects services for incoming traffic. ¶ [0116]);
determining at regular time intervals (See Fig. 3: selecting intervals of time, items in the saved list of traffic characteristics are analyzed, and either 1) recognized and a corresponding traffic class is added to the traffic tree. ¶ [0142]) a respective class bandwidth (See Fig. 3: providing for automatically classifying packet flows for use in allocating bandwidth resources and the like by a rule of assignment of a service level. ¶ [0026]) that is provided for the transmission of data for each class of traffic based on a bandwidth that is available for the transmission of data (See Fig. 3: enabling network managers to: automatically define traffic classes, for which policies may then be created for specifying service levels for the traffic classes and isolating bandwidth resources associated with certain traffic classes for network communications. ¶ [0037]).
Riddle doesn’t explicitly provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission.
However, Yoo discloses determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission (See Fig. 4: total bandwidth usage amount is calculated in real time in consideration of factors including frame overhead, and an upward bandwidth with respect to each class queue (i.e., traffic) is finally allocated by comparing the total bandwidth usage amount with the total upward bandwidth value (operation 430). ¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission as taught by Yoo to have incorporated in the system of Riddle, so that it would provide that the upward bandwidth usage efficiency is improved by calculating the final bandwidth allocation information from the service with a high priority order on the basis of the total allocable bandwidth of the corresponding frame. Yoo: Abstract.
Regarding claim 14; Riddle teaches the method according to claim 12, which comprises determining the total bandwidth that is available based on measurements, performed at regular time intervals (Yoo: the bandwidth allocation amount is calculated with respect to class queues which have the allocation periods by concurrently checking all the tables at each frame. See Abstract), of a data transmission rate of data transmitted between the track-bound vehicle and the land-based facility (Riddle: See Fig. 1B, data flow rate capacity information is a key factor for use in resource allocation decisions. ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 18; Riddle in view of Yoo discloses the method which comprises assigning the data to be transmitted in each case to one of a plurality of classes of traffic as a function of at least one property of the data selected from the group consisting of: a criticality of the data to be transmitted (Yoo: calculating the final bandwidth allocation information from the service with a high priority order on the basis of the total allocable bandwidth of the corresponding frame. Yoo and its Abstract).
[Office’s Note: Because of the alternative claim language such as “at least one property of…”, only one of the alternative limitations has been analyzed by the examiner].
Regarding claim 20; Riddle teaches a non-transitory program carrier for storing and/or providing a computer program product that includes executable commands which, when executed by a calculation facility, cause the calculation facility to carry out the method comprising:
assigning the data to be transmitted in each case to one of a plurality off classes of traffic (See Fig. 3: A traffic tree 302 is provided in which new traffic will be discovered under a particular member class node. The traffic tree may have a hierarchy of nodes (Class A, B C) and corresponding subnodes under the nodes. A traffic classifier 304 detects services for incoming traffic. ¶ [0116]);
determining at regular time intervals (See Fig. 3: selecting intervals of time, items in the saved list of traffic characteristics are analyzed, and either 1) recognized and a corresponding traffic class is added to the traffic tree. ¶ [0142]) a respective class bandwidth (See Fig. 3: providing for automatically classifying packet flows for use in allocating bandwidth resources and the like by a rule of assignment of a service level. ¶ [0026]) that is provided for the transmission of data for each class of traffic based on a bandwidth that is available for the transmission of data (See Fig. 3: enabling network managers to: automatically define traffic classes, for which policies may then be created for specifying service levels for the traffic classes and isolating bandwidth resources associated with certain traffic classes for network communications. ¶ [0037]).
Riddle doesn’t explicitly provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission.
However, Yoo discloses determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission (See Fig. 4: total bandwidth usage amount is calculated in real time in consideration of factors including frame overhead, and an upward bandwidth with respect to each class queue (i.e., traffic) is finally allocated by comparing the total bandwidth usage amount with the total upward bandwidth value (operation 430). ¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission as taught by Yoo to have incorporated in the system of Riddle, so that it would provide that the upward bandwidth usage efficiency is improved by calculating the final bandwidth allocation information from the service with a high priority order on the basis of the total allocable bandwidth of the corresponding frame. Yoo: Abstract.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riddle et al. (US 2002/0143939 A1) in view of YOO et al. (US 2010/0008379 A1), and further in view of Carver et al. (US 2004/0010592 A1).
Regarding claim 21; Riddle teaches a user for controlling a transmission of data between the track-bound vehicle and a land-based facility, comprising:
a calculation facility configured to assign the data to be transmitted in each case to one of a plurality off classes of traffic (See Fig. 3: A traffic tree 302 is provided in which new traffic will be discovered under a particular member class node. The traffic tree may have a hierarchy of nodes (Class A, B C) and corresponding subnodes under the nodes. A traffic classifier 304 detects services for incoming traffic. ¶ [0116]);
a bandwidth control facility configured to determine a class bandwidth (See Fig. 3: providing for automatically classifying packet flows for use in allocating bandwidth resources and the like by a rule of assignment of a service level. ¶ [0026]) provided for the transmission at regular time intervals (See Fig. 3: selecting intervals of time, items in the saved list of traffic characteristics are analyzed, and either 1) recognized and a corresponding traffic class is added to the traffic tree. ¶ [0142]) based on a bandwidth that is available for the transmission of data (See Fig. 3: enabling network managers to: automatically define traffic classes, for which policies may then be created for specifying service levels for the traffic classes and isolating bandwidth resources associated with certain traffic classes for network communications. ¶ [0037]).
Riddle doesn’t explicitly provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission.
However, Yoo discloses determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission (See Fig. 4: total bandwidth usage amount is calculated in real time in consideration of factors including frame overhead, and an upward bandwidth with respect to each class queue (i.e., traffic) is finally allocated by comparing the total bandwidth usage amount with the total upward bandwidth value (operation 430). ¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission as taught by Yoo to have incorporated in the system of Riddle, so that it would provide that the upward bandwidth usage efficiency is improved by calculating the final bandwidth allocation information from the service with a high priority order on the basis of the total allocable bandwidth of the corresponding frame. Yoo: Abstract.
Neither Riddle nor Yoo discloses a track-bound vehicle for controlling a transmission of data.
Carver teaches discloses a track-bound vehicle for controlling a transmission of data (Carver: A mobility indicator having three possible values representing low mobility--e.g. for indoor use--, medium mobility--e.g. for pedestrian use--, and high mobility--e.g. for use within vehicles and server. ¶ [0357]).
The motivation would provide to have access to the full capacity of the resource with dynamic allocation of the resource to the different types of traffic. Carver, ¶ [0365].
Regarding claim 22; Riddle teaches a system for controlling a transmission of data between a track- bound vehicle and a land-based facility, the system comprising:
a calculation facility configured to assign the data to be transmitted in each case to one of a plurality off classes of traffic (See Fig. 3: A traffic tree 302 is provided in which new traffic will be discovered under a particular member class node. The traffic tree may have a hierarchy of nodes (Class A, B C) and corresponding subnodes under the nodes. A traffic classifier 304 detects services for incoming traffic. ¶ [0116]);
a bandwidth control facility configured to determine a class bandwidth (See Fig. 3: providing for automatically classifying packet flows for use in allocating bandwidth resources and the like by a rule of assignment of a service level. ¶ [0026]) provided for the transmission at regular time intervals (See Fig. 3: selecting intervals of time, items in the saved list of traffic characteristics are analyzed, and either 1) recognized and a corresponding traffic class is added to the traffic tree. ¶ [0142]) based on a bandwidth that is available for the transmission of data (See Fig. 3: enabling network managers to: automatically define traffic classes, for which policies may then be created for specifying service levels for the traffic classes and isolating bandwidth resources associated with certain traffic classes for network communications. ¶ [0037]).
Riddle doesn’t explicitly provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission.
However, Yoo discloses determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission (See Fig. 4: total bandwidth usage amount is calculated in real time in consideration of factors including frame overhead, and an upward bandwidth with respect to each class queue (i.e., traffic) is finally allocated by comparing the total bandwidth usage amount with the total upward bandwidth value (operation 430). ¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide determining based on a total bandwidth for data transmission as taught by Yoo to have incorporated in the system of Riddle, so that it would provide that the upward bandwidth usage efficiency is improved by calculating the final bandwidth allocation information from the service with a high priority order on the basis of the total allocable bandwidth of the corresponding frame. Yoo: Abstract.
Neither Riddle nor Yoo discloses a track-bound vehicle for controlling a transmission of data.
Carver teaches discloses a track-bound vehicle for controlling a transmission of data (Carver: A mobility indicator having three possible values representing low mobility--e.g. for indoor use--, medium mobility--e.g. for pedestrian use--, and high mobility--e.g. for use within vehicles. ¶ [0357]).
The motivation would provide to have access to the full capacity of the resource with dynamic allocation of the resource to the different types of traffic. Carver, ¶ [0365].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeffries et al. (US 2003/0189934 A1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAI AUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416