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 .
General Remarks
1/ claims 1-9 are pending
2/ claims 1, 8 and 9 are independent
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” or “step” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Regarding claim 3, “transfer control portion discards…”;
-Regarding claim 5, “policy generation portion and measurement portion for measuring…”, “transfer control portion transfers…”;
-Regarding claim 6, “tunnel communication portion transmits…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
1/ Claims 3, 5 and 6 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 limitations “transfer control portion discards…” “policy generation portion and measurement portion for measuring…”, “transfer control portion transfers…” and “tunnel communication portion transmits…” of claims 3, 5 and 6 indicated above invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in limitations in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. The claim language specifies a general computer system such as apparatus comprising a generic place holders such as portion that can be interpreted to module or means to perform the functions indicated without mentioning a specific structure for performing claim functions. However a general computer system comprising a generic place holder is not enough to provide structural support for performing claim functions of each limitations indicated. Therefore, the claim are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
2/ Claims 1, 2, 3, 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
- “same network in “…the same network”.
-“same network segment” in” …the same network segment”.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
-“policy storage portion” in “…the policy storage portion”;
-“communication portion” in “…the communication portion”;
-“tunnel communication portion” in “…the tunnel communication portion”;
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
-“transfer control portion” in “…the transfer control portion”;
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
-“same network” in “…the same network”;
-“same network segment” in “…the same network segment”;
-“policy storage portion” in “…the policy storage potion”;
-“communication portion” in “…the communication portion”
-“tunnel communication portion” in “…tunnel communication portion”;
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
-“same network” in “…the same network”;
-“same network segment” in “…the same network segment”;
3/ Claims 4-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the tunnel communication portion passes through a wireless communication section in a tunnel communication path”. The tunnel communication portion is interpreted in light of the disclosure to correspond to tunnel communication means/module that is a component of the apparatus to from the tunnel. It is not clear how tunnel communication module passes (got transmitted) through wireless communication in a tunnel communication path.
-Claim 5 recites “…measuring am amount of multicast packet from received packets”. From the specification of the claim, it is not clear which attributes are measured. Measured attributes can be such as: volume of packets, number of packets, transmission time gap attributes or any attributes. It is not clear which attribute is considered and making limits and boundary of the claim indeterminate hence rendering the claim indefinite.
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) 1-2, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US pg. no. 20160006646), further in view of Wang (CN101895481A).
Regarding claim 1. Lin discloses a communication system (fig. 9 multicast communication system) comprising:
at least one first device configured to have a communication function (fig. 9, 902 multicast source having multicast communication function);
at least one second device configured to have a communication function (fig. 9 112); and
a communication apparatus (fig. 9 edge device 112c) configured to communicate with the first device within the same network([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1 to the third edge device 112c which may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3), form a tunnel network together with the opposite second device, and virtually communicate with the second device in the same network segment via the tunnel network ([0125] the third edge device 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation (forming tunnel) to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted (virtual communication of a multicast as a unicast)to the corresponding edge devices 112b (second device)), execute IGMP snooping, and analyze a multicast transfer policy ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (executing IGMP snooping) as shown in table 4-3 as well as the multicast member port of G1. Since the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3 do not include the multicast member port of G1, the third edge device 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b), and
Lin inherently discloses control packet transfer according to the multicast transfer policy for a packet to be transferred in communication between the first device and the second device ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (executing IGMP snooping) as shown in table 4-3 as well as the multicast member port of G1. Since the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3 do not include the multicast member port of G1, the third edge device 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b. Establishing IGMP snooping table and forwarding multicast according to the table entries corresponds to policy and controlling forwarding based on the policy).
But, Lin does not explicitly disclose:
control packet transfer according to the multicast transfer policy for a packet to be transferred in communication between the first device and the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor Wang discloses control packet transfer according to the multicast transfer policy for a packet to be transferred in communication between the first device and the second device (page 2, lines 49-60 discloses a BMP (Bridge Multicast Policy that corresponds to multicast transfer policy) is added to the bridge module for maintenance. BMP specifies processing strategies for IP messages (including IGMP messages and PIM messages), multicast frame forwarding strategies, and other multicast strategies; After receiving the IGMP message, the bridge module decides to hand over the IGMP message to IGMP Snooping according to the locally maintained bridge multicast policy, or floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the IGMP message; After receiving the PIM message, the bridge module decides to hand over the PIM message to IGMPSNOOPING and floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the PIM message according to the bridge multicast policy maintained locally, or only corresponds to the PIM message. Flooded on all bridge group interfaces within the bridge group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Lin with Wang. The modification would allow using stored forwarding policy for different traffics to enable fast traffic processing and forwarding of bulk communication.
Regarding claim 2. The communication system according to claim 1.
Lin inherently discloses, wherein the communication apparatus includes at least one memory storing instructions (fig. 9 edge device c 112 comprises memory); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do motion determination process (fig. 9 edge device c 112 comprises memory), wherein the motion determination process includes:
communicating with a device within the same network ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message (communicating with source 902) according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (executing IGMP snooping) as shown in table 4-3 as well as the multicast member port of G1… and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b).
forming a tunnel network together with an opposite device and virtually enabling communication with the opposite device in the same network segment via the tunnel network ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message (communicating with source 902) according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (executing IGMP snooping) as shown in table 4-3 as well as the multicast member port of G1… and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b),
performing transfer control of a packet received by the communication portion or the tunnel communication portion according to the communication policy ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (executing IGMP snooping) as shown in table 4-3 … 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b. The communication interface of 112c interfacing with 902 corresponds to communication portion and interface of 112c interfacing with 112b corresponds to tunnel portion).
Wang discloses storing a plurality of communication policies between the same network and the same network segment, and enabling reference to the communication policy , and referring to a communication policy stored in the policy storage portion(page 2, lines 49-60 discloses a BMP (Bridge Multicast Policy that corresponds to multicast transfer policy) is added to the bridge module for maintenance. BMP specifies processing strategies for IP messages (including IGMP messages and PIM messages), multicast frame forwarding strategies (policy), and other multicast strategies (policy); After receiving the IGMP message, the bridge module decides to hand over the IGMP message to IGMP Snooping according to the locally maintained bridge multicast policy, or floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the IGMP message; After receiving the PIM message, the bridge module decides to hand over the PIM message to IGMPSNOOPING and floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the PIM message according to the bridge multicast policy maintained locally, or only corresponds to the PIM message. Flooded on all bridge group interfaces within the bridge group).
Regarding claim 4. The combination discloses communication system according to claim 2.
Lin discloses, wherein the tunnel communication portion passes through a wireless communication section in a tunnel communication path (fig. 9, [0125-0128], and [0149] discloses 112c communicates with 112a and 112b via tunnel. [0149] disclose where the network connecting the devices can be a wireless 802.11x LAN, a 3G mobile WAN or a WiMax WAN).
Regarding claim 8. A communication apparatus (fig. 9, 112c edge device) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do motion determination process (fig. 9 [0125] discloses 112c is configured to receive multicast packets from source 902 and encapsulate them and send the packets to 112b that corresponds to motion determination process in light of the disclosure), wherein the motion determination process includes:
communicating with a device within the same network ([0125] When the multicast source 902 (a device) sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1 to the third edge device 112c (communication apparatus) which may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3;
forming a tunnel network together with an opposite device, and virtually enabling communication with the opposite device in the same network segment via the tunnel network([0125] the third edge device 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation (forming tunnel) to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted (virtual communication of a multicast as a unicast)to the corresponding edge devices 112b (second device));
storing a plurality of communication policies (table 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 discloses stored plurality of policies) between the same network and the same network segment (fig.9, multisite network 900 and segments of the network 600), and enabling reference to the communication policy ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message according (refereeing) to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3 (communication policy) as well as the multicast member port of G1));; and
referring to a communication policy stored in the policy storage portion ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c may perform the replication of the multicast data message according (referring) to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries as shown in table 4-3 (stored communication policy) as well as the multicast member port of G1),and
performing transfer control of a packet received by the communication portion or the tunnel communication portion according to the communication policy ([0125] When the multicast source 902 sends a multicast data message whose multicast group address is G1, the third edge device 112c (the communication interface between 902 and 112c corresponds to communication portion) may perform the replication of the multicast data message according to multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 in the IGMP snooping table entries (communication policy (snooping table) referred to select the ports that are associated with multicast) as shown in table 4-3 … the third edge device 112c may only replicate the multicast data message according to the multicast router ports MSN-link31 and MSN-link32, and may perform tunnel-encapsulation to the replicated multicast data message according to MSN-link31 and MSN-link32 to obtain a MSN message. The MSN message may then be unicasted to the corresponding first and second edge devices 112a, 112b (the communication interface between 112c and 112b corresponds to tunnel communication portion).
But, Lin does not explicitly disclose:
storing a plurality of communication policies;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses storing a plurality of communication policies (page 2, lines 49-60 discloses a BMP (Bridge Multicast Policy that corresponds to multicast transfer policy) is added to the bridge module for maintenance. BMP specifies processing strategies for IP messages (including IGMP messages and PIM messages), multicast frame forwarding strategies, and other multicast strategies (each strategy corresponds to policy); After receiving the IGMP message, the bridge module decides to hand over the IGMP message to IGMP Snooping according to the locally maintained bridge multicast policy, or floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the IGMP message; After receiving the PIM message, the bridge module decides to hand over the PIM message to IGMPSNOOPING and floods all bridge group interfaces in the bridge group corresponding to the PIM message according to the bridge multicast policy maintained locally, or only corresponds to the PIM message. Flooded on all bridge group interfaces within the bridge group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Lin with Wang. The modification would allow using stored forwarding policy for different traffics to enable fast traffic processing and forwarding of bulk communication using already stored policy.
Regarding claim 9. The combination discloses a communication method, comprising:
All other limitations of claim 9 are similar with limitations of claim 1 and are rejected on the analysis of claim 1 above
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin (US pg. no. 20160006646), and Wang (CN101895481A), further in view of Arai (US pg. no. 20120294139).
Regarding claim 3. The combination discloses communication system according to claim 2.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the transfer control portion discards multicast except for an IGMP packet in an initial state;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Arai discloses wherein the transfer control portion discards multicast except for an IGMP packet in an initial state ([0122-0123] discloses the switch controller 110 first determines whether IGMP/MLD snooping is currently running (step S420). When IGMP/MLP snooping is currently running (step S420: Yes), the switch controller 110 subsequently determines whether the reason of discarding the multicast frame MF is the absence of the multicast transfer port, i.e., whether the settings of the multicast transfer port for the snooping information 186 include any communication port 40 other than the communication port 40 that has received the multicast frame MF (step S430). [0123] When the reason of discarding the multicast frame MF is the absence of the multicast transfer port (step S430: Yes), the switch controller 110 serving as the withdrawal sending module 136 sends a multicast leaving message LM to the source of the multicast frame MF to be discarded (step S440)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Arai. The modification would allow dropping unwanted traffic to save bandwidth resource.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin (US pg. no. 20160006646), and Wang (CN101895481A), further in view of Wainner (US pg. no. 20110164752).
Regarding claim 6. The combination discloses communication system according to claim 2.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the tunnel communication portion means transmits the communication policy to the second device, and confirms that the communication policy has reached the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wainner discloses wherein the tunnel communication portion means transmits the communication policy to the second device, and confirms that the communication policy has reached the second device ([0068-0069] the key server (comprising tunnel communication portion) can send a unicast message containing the current policy (communication policy) to one or more group members, as shown at 520. These unicast messages request acknowledgement. In some situations, the key server may send the unicast messages to all group members. If it is possible to narrow down the potential stale group members to a subset of the group members (e.g., based upon other information in the notification message), the key server may instead only send the unicast message to that subset of the group members.[0069] If all of the messages sent at 520 are acknowledged within the timeout period associated with the unicast messages, the key server can determine that all of the group members to which the unicast messages were sent successfully received those messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of eth invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Wainner. The modification would allow sending policy update and effectively ensuring policy is updated to avoid stale policy.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lin (US pg. no. 20160006646), and Wang (CN101895481A), further in view of Geng (US pg. no. 20130028164).
Regarding claim 7. The communication system according to claim 2.
Lin discloses, wherein one of the first device and the second device includes at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to do motion determination process (fig. 9 discloses 902 and 912 corresponds to the first and second devices comprising memory ad processor to perform motion determination process);
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose: wherein the motion determination process includes:
storing a communication policy, and synchronizing a content stored in the policy storage portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Geng discloses wherein the motion determination process includes: storing a communication policy, and synchronizing a content stored in the policy storage portion ([0062]the Aps (the first device or the second device) update (synchronize) the locally stored multicast control tables (multicast policy) accordingly, and apply the updated multicast control policy to perform multicast control).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Geng. The modification would allow using updated multicast policy. The modification would allow effectively updating multicast policy and avoiding using stale multicast policy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESSERET F. GEBRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8272. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 5712701684. 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.
/MESSERET F GEBRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445