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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as follows below. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Both [Fig. 1] and the first sentence of paragraph [0034] of the instant Specification refers to a “Priority forward 120”. However, other instances in the instant Specification refer to this feature as “priority forward embodiment 120”. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue by amending the Specification and [Fig. 1] to more consistently recite the “priority forward embodiment 120” feature.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
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 2, 4-6, 7 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 2 recites that “the method is implemented via a software, a hardware, or a firmware”. This however makes the claim indefinite, as there are possible interpretations such that the method may be implanted only via software or firmware (or a combination of the two). However, claim 2 is dependent upon independent claim 1, which is a method implemented on a “device”, where “the device has a first incoming port and a second incoming port”. The independent claim 1 requires these limitations, and it is understood in the art that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “device” with “a first incoming port and a second incoming port” includes physical hardware elements. However, dependent claim 2 has an interpretation where the method is implemented only via software or firmware (or a combination of the two), which creates a contradiction, thus making the claim indefinite. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue.
Claims 4-5 both recite “further comprising the step of … ”, which is the first mention of “the step” in the claims. This is an antecedent basis issue, thus making the claims indefinite. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue.
Claim 6 is directed to a “system to implement the method of claim 1”, thus making the claim dependent upon independent claim 1. However, independent claim 1 is directed to a “method of implementing a binary gateway protocol on a target connection to prioritize incoming communications” that is implemented “on a device”. It is unclear how the “system” of dependent claim 6 relates to the “device” of independent claim 1, thus making the claim indefinite. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue.
Claim 7 recites the step of “receive data on either the first incoming port or the second incoming port”. However given how the claim language is written, if data is received on the “first incoming port” and no data is received on the “second incoming port”, then data will always be forwarded because the second port does not receive data. Then inversely, if data is received on the “second incoming port” and no data is received on the “first incoming port”, then the “forwarding data” steps b. and d. can be entirely ignored as there is no data received by the “first incoming port” to be forwarded. The claim language, as it is written and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is open to interpretations that contradict themselves, thus making the claim indefinite. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 recites steps and limitations which are analogous to the steps and limitations of independent claim 1. However, claim 7 as it is written is dependent upon claim 6 and thus also dependent upon claim 1. Since the steps are analogous, claim 7 does not further limit the subject matter of independent claim 1. Examiner requests that Applicant please correct this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labonte et al (US 20160301618 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Labonte discloses
A method of implementing a binary gateway protocol on a target connection to prioritize incoming communications comprising ([0024] method for prioritization of packet traffic):
receiving data on a device in electronic communication with the target connection, wherein the device has a first incoming port and a second incoming port ([0024] network device receives data and has a second ingress port (first incoming port) and a first ingress port (second incoming port));
allowing data received by the first incoming port to flow through the first incoming port as long as no data is received by the second incoming port ([0024] packets received by the second ingress port (data received by the first incoming port) may be granted access as long as there is bandwidth available that is not being used by the first ingress port and traffic to first ingress port stops (as long as no data is received by the second incoming port));
halting data flow through the first incoming port if data is received by the second incoming port and allowing data to flow through the second incoming port ([0024] none of the packets received by the second ingress port (first incoming port) may be delivered (halting data flow through) until the first ingress port (second incoming port) has finished receiving packets (allowing data to flow through the second incoming port)); and
allowing data to flow through the first incoming port once data ceases to be received by the second incoming port ([0024] packets received by the second ingress port (first incoming port) are allowed to be delivered when the first ingress port (second incoming port) stops receiving packets (data ceases to be received by the second incoming port)).
Regarding claim 2, Labonte discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is implemented via a software, a hardware, or a firmware ([0024] method for prioritization of packet traffic by a network device).
Regarding claim 3, Labonte discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein data is preconfigured to be received by the first incoming port or the second incoming port 0024] network device receives data on both a second ingress port (first incoming port) and a first ingress port (second incoming port)).
Regarding claim 6, Labonte discloses
A system to implement the method of claim 1, comprising ([Fig. 1] network device 100):
a receiver for receiving electronic communication, wherein the receiver comprises a first incoming port and a second incoming port ([0024] network device comprises a second ingress port (first incoming port) and a first ingress port (second incoming port));
a computer processor ([0013] network device comprises a processor);
a non-transitory data storage medium ([0013] network device comprises non-transitory computer readable medium); and
a transmitter for sending electronic communications ([0015] network device comprises egress ports, from where data packets can be sent to their destinations).
Regarding claim 7, Labonte discloses
The system of claim 6, wherein the non-transitory data storage medium comprises computer instructions instructing the computer processor to:
receive data on either the first incoming port or the second incoming port ([0024] network device receives data on both a second ingress port (first incoming port) and a first ingress port (second incoming port));
forward data received by the first incoming port as long as there is no received by the second incoming port ([0024] packets received by the second ingress port (data received by the first incoming port) may be granted access (forwarded) as long as there is bandwidth available that is not being used by the first ingress port (as long as no data is received by the second incoming port));
block data received by the first incoming port and forward data received by the second incoming port when data is received by the second incoming port ([0024] none of the packets received by the second ingress port (first incoming port) may be delivered (blocking data flow through) until the first ingress port (second incoming port) has finished receiving packets and forwarding them to the egress port (allowing data to flow through the second incoming port)); and
forward data received by the first incoming port once there is no longer data received by the second incoming port ([0024] packets received by the second ingress port (first incoming port) are allowed to be delivered when the first ingress port (second incoming port) stops receiving packets (no longer data received by the second incoming port)).
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 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labonte et al (US 20160301618 A1), and further in view of Rohloff (US 20150237020 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Labonte teaches The method of claim 1, as is described above.
Labonte does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of decrypting data.
However, Rohloff does teach further comprising the step of decrypting data ([0007] first encrypted data and second encrypted data are decrypted).
Labonte and Rohloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of receiving data on multiple ports. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Labonte to include the teachings of Rohloff where there is a first encrypted data and a second encrypted data that are decrypted. The rationale behind this would be to help with data privacy ([0002] Rohloff).
Regarding claim 5, Labonte teaches The method of claim 1, as is described above.
Labonte does not explicitly teach further comprising the step of encrypting data prior to allowing data to flow through the first incoming port or the second incoming port.
However. Rohloff does teach further comprising the step of encrypting data prior to allowing data to flow through the first incoming port or the second incoming port ([0007] first input port and second input port both receive encrypted data (data is encrypted prior to data flowing through the first and second incoming ports)).
Labonte and Rohloff are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of receiving data on multiple ports. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Labonte to include the teachings of Rohloff where there is a first encrypted data and a second encrypted data that are decrypted. The rationale behind this would be to help with data privacy ([0002] Rohloff).
Conclusion
The following is prior art that is made of record and not relied upon but is considered to be pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20080137640 A1 to Calahan et al teaches a device sending and receiving data through a first receive port and a second receive port ([0004] Calahan).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM JOEL CERLANEK whose telephone number is (703)756-1272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/A.J.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights