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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 6/17/24 in which claims 1-6 and 9-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 9-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
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.
4. Claims 3-4, 10, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0220182 to Negishi et al.
a. As per claim 3, Negishi et al teaches a network transmission device, comprising: circuitry configured to generate a packet to be transmitted to a destination device, the packet including arrival upper-limit value indicating an arrival time limit of the packet to the destination device the arrival upper-limit value being stored in a header of the packet (See paragraph [0016-0017 and 0105]) ; and transmit the packet generated by the generation unit to the destination device via a network (See paragraph [0047]).
b. As per claim 4, Negishi et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Negishi et al teaches wherein the circuitry generates the packet including the arrival upper-limit value that is determined according to the type of a service provided by the packet (See paragraph [0040]).
c. As per claim 10, Negishi et al teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a packet transmission program used in a network transmission device the packet transmission program, when executed by circuitry of a computer, causes the circuitry to perform a method comprising: generating a packet to be transmitted to a destination device, the packet including arrival upper-limit information indicating an arrival time limit of the packet to the destination device the arrival upper-limit value being stored in a header of the packet (See paragraph [0016-0017]); and transmitting the packet generated to the destination device via a network (See paragraph [0047]).
d. As per claims 18 and 19, Negishi et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Negishi et al teaches wherein each of the arrival upper-limit information and the arrival lower-limit information is determined according to the type of a service provided by the packet (See paragraph [0040]).
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0220182 to Negishi et al in view of JP 2015162719 to Satake et al
a. As per claims 5 and 11, Negishi et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. , Negishi et al teaches the value being stored in the header of the packet (See paragraph [0016-0017]). However, Negishi et al fails to teach wherein the circuitry generates the packet further including arrival lower-limit value that indicates a lower limit of a time range in which the packet should be made to arrive at the destination device, the arrival lower-limit value being stored in the header of the packet.
Satake et al teaches wherein the circuitry generates the packet further including arrival lower-limit value that indicates a lower limit of a time range in which the packet should be made to arrive at the destination device (See page 3, a packet is generated by a transmission source at a predetermined time interval T and transmitted from the transmission source).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Satake in the claimed invention of Negishi et al in order to optimize prioritizing of the packets.
b. As per claim 6, Negishi et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Negishi et al fails to teach wherein the generation unit circuitry generates the packet including the arrival lower-limit value information that is determined according to the type of a service provided by the packet.
Satake teaches wherein the generation unit circuitry generates the packet including the arrival lower-limit value information that is determined according to the type of a service provided by the packet (See page 5, Note that the predetermined time may be determined in advance, or may be changed based on a network configuration, a service characteristic related to a packet).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Satake in the claimed invention of Negishi et al in order to optimize prioritizing of the packets.
c. As per claims 15 and 22, Negishi et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Negishi et al fails to teach wherein the circuitry receives the packet from a network transmission device, and the network transmission device and the network relay device are in time- synchronization with each other.
Satake et al teaches wherein the circuitry receives the packet from a network transmission device, and the network transmission device and the network relay device are in time- synchronization with each other (See page 3, FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a state of a packet received by the communication device 1. As shown in FIG. 2, a packet is generated by a transmission source at a predetermined time interval T and transmitted from the transmission source. On the other hand, a packet received by the communication device 1 is added with delays t1 to t3 generated by packet processing in the middle of relaying or changes in network traffic, and reaches the communication device 1 at reception intervals T1 to T3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Satake in the claimed invention of Negishi et al in order to optimize prioritizing of the packets.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-2, 9, 12-14, 16-17, 20-21 allowed.
9. Claims 5-6objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights