DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the reply filed on 07/07/2026. Claims 1-27 are pending in this Action.
Remark
In the response filed 07/07/2026, claims 1, 12, and 23 have been amended, no claim has been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
Applicant has requested deferral for responding to the double patenting rejection until allowable subject matter has been determined. The prior double patenting rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument that:
…Iko does not describe utilizing connection parameters or data regarding a data source and a data sink to identify any computation resources to allocate.
Notwithstanding the above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the teachings of Baron and Bose with the teachings of Iko to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, Baron describes techniques for choosing between multiple known connection pathways between a data source and a data sink based on preference indicators (Baron, Abstract). Bose describes a pipeline for processing data on an event-by-event basis (Bose, Abstract). However, Iko describes techniques for connecting devices to a wireless LAN network utilizing a external apparatus transmitting a beacon signal (Iko, 55)…. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Baron or Bose with the teachings of Iko.
For at least the reasons outlined above, Baron, Bose, and Iko, alone or in any reasonable combination, fail to describe at least the above-emphasized language of the independent claims.
First, the Examiner holds that the specification of current invention fails to
describe the amended features of “when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters; when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory” to claims 1, 12, and 13. See the 35 USC 112 rejections, below.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given the broadest and reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification (BRI), reading language of the claims in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of the ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner is mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As such, the Examiner in accordance with the BRI, interprets the subject matter of “computational resources” as any hardware or software means or features that facilitate a network connection.
Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In addition, the applicant tries to argue against the references individually, in
response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner holds that according to BRI, Iko discloses determining whether there is history of previous information of a network connection, if there is then read the stored network parameters and use network resources (e.g., a channel, ESSID, IP address, or Authentication Scheme) to establish a connection (See Iko: at least Fig. 4B-C, Fig. 7, para 77, 79, 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of “when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters, and establishing the connection using the identified computational resources,” as recited by claim 1.
Furthermore, the subsequent limitation “when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory” is a contingent limitation, and it is not required to be executed by the claims since the first the condition for the first part (i.e., when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection…) was satisfied and said function has been executed.
Nonetheless, Iko discloses determining if history of previous information of
stored network parameter does not exist, then “generate network parameter” and use network resources (e.g., a channel, ESSID, IP address, or Authentication Scheme) establish a connection, and storing the network parameters (See Iko: at least Fig. 4B-C, Fig. 7, para 77, 79, 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of “when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory; and establishing the connection using the identified computational resources,” as recited by claim 1.
Therefore, modifying the teachings of establishing a connection between a node and a sink node based on stored preference data of the combination of Baron and Bose with the above teachings of Iko would disclose or suggest the feature of “when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters ; and when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory; and establishing the connection using the identified computational resources,” as recited by claims 1, 12, and 13.
In conclusion, based on above explanation and reasoning, the Examiner contends that the combined teachings of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses or at least
suggests all the limitations of amended claims 1, 12, and 23.
Double Patenting
See the previous non-final Office Action mailed 05/06/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The newly amended claims 1, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains the amended subject matter of “when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters; when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although, the specification describes configuring one or more resources to perform stream processing (for example see Fig. 8 and page 21 of the specification), the specification at the time the application was filed fails to provide any description for the features of “when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters” and “when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory.”
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 1-27 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.
Regarding amended claims 1, 12, and 23,
As explained above, the newly amended claims recite the features of
“when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters; when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory” that were not described in the specification. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are ambiguous to a person of ordinary skill in that art. Claims 1, 12, and 13 are 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.
Regarding claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24-27,
said claims dependent on the rejected claims 1, 12, and 23 and inherit the same deficiency. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-22, and 24-27 are rejected for the same reason set forth in rejections of claims 1, 12, and 23.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12, 13, 15-18, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 (Baron, hereafter) in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 (Bose, hereafter) and further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330.
Regarding claim 1,
Baron discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, the at least one processor, when executing (See Baron: at least Fig. 8 and para 89), is configured
to:
receive data relating to a data source and data sink, wherein the data
source is a boundless data source (See Baron: at least Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-5, 49, and 76-77, receiving data relating to source, sink, and communication preferences or settings); and
establish, based on the received data relating to the data source and data sink, a connection between the data source and the data sink (See Baron: at least Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-5, 49, and 76-77).
Although, Baron discloses receiving streaming data from a source and storing it in a sink, Baron does not explicitly teach receive event data from the data source; process the event data on an event-by-event basis; and land the processed event data into the data sink.
On the other hand, Bose discloses receiving event data, process and transform each event, and send the processed event to a sink (See Bose: at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2B, Fig. 5, para 50-51, 78, 80, 103, 120, and 134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Baron with Bose’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the method by allowing the system to process event data, transform, and enrich event data prior to sending the event to data to a data sink.
The combination of Baron and Bose discloses the limitations as stated above
including establishing a connection between a node and a sink node based on stored preference data (See Baron: at least Fig. 6 and para 70-71). However, it does not explicitly teach when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters; and when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory; and establishing the connection using the identified computational resources.
The Examiner notes that the specification of current invention does not define “computational resources” for establishing a connection. As such, based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification, the Examiner interprets as any hardware or software means or features that facilitate a network connection.
On the other hand, Iko discloses determining whether there is history of previous
information of a network connection, if there is then read the stored network parameters and use network resources (e.g., a channel, ESSID, IP address, or Authentication Scheme) to establish a connection (See Iko: at least Fig. 4B-C, Fig. 7, para 77, 79, 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the connection parameters; and establishing the connection using the identified computational resources.
The Examiner further notes that the subsequent limitation “when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory” is a contingent limitation, and it is not required to be executed by the claims since the first the condition for the first part (i.e., when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection…) was satisfied and said function has been executed.
However, Iko also discloses determining if history of previous information of stored network parameter does not exist, then “generate network parameter” and use network resources (e.g., a channel, ESSID, IP address, or Authentication Scheme) establish a connection, and storing the network parameters (See Iko: at least Fig. 4B-C, Fig. 7, para 77, 79, 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, identifying one or more computational resources to be used to establish the connection based on the data, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory; and
establishing the connection using the identified computational resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron and Bose with Iko’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the method and save the user the trouble of inputting network information and connection parameters again.
Regarding claim 4,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the data relating to the data source and data sink comprises one or more connection strings associated with the data source and/or data sink (See Baron: at least Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-6, 49, and 76-77, the communication preferences or setting such as paths could be in form of strings of characters).
Regarding claim 5,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the data relating to the data source and data sink further comprises credentials for the data source and data sink (See Baron: at least 57 and 76-77, controlling the data by implementing authorization and authentication of devices).
Regarding claim 6,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the data relating to the data source and data sink is received from a connection registry configured to store connection strings and metadata associated with the data source and the data sink (See Baron: at least 4, 47, and 76-77, the communication preferences data
and configuration (i.e., metadata) could be stored in a storage/registry).
Regarding claim 7,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to process the event data by performing one or more database operations on the event data prior to landing the event data into the data sink (See Baron: at least Fig. 1, para 24, 28, 33, 49, 72-78, 108, and 141).
Regarding claim 8,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the one or more
database operations comprise one or more of monitoring, timestamping, windowing, and/or checkpointing (See Baron: at least Fig. 1, para 33, 49, 108, 120,
and 141, for example windowing (para 120)).
Regarding claim 9,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the one or more database operations comprise aggregation operations including at least one of: comparisons of the event data, string manipulations of the event data, expression matching of the event data, and/or calculation of metrics of grouped data of the event data (See Baron: at least Fig. 1, para 24, 28, 33, 49, 72-78, 108, 120, and 141, aggregation operation based on time window).
Regarding claim 12,
Baron discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor operatively connected to a memory, the at least one processor, when executing (See Baron: at least Fig. 8 and para 89), is configured
to:
receive data relating to a data source and data sink (See Baron: at least Fig.
1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-5, 49, and 76-77, receiving data relating to source, sink, and
communication preferences or settings); and
establish, based on the received data relating to the data source and data sink, a connection between the data source and each data sink (See Baron: at least Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-5, 49, and 76-77).
Although, Baron discloses receiving streaming data from a source and storing it
in sink, Baron does not explicitly teach a plurality of data sinks; receive event data from the data source; process the event data on an event-by-event basis; land the processed event data into one of the plurality of data sinks; and merge the processed event data from each data sink of the plurality of data sinks into a
collection.
On the other hand, Bose discloses a plurality of sinks, receiving event data, process and transform each event, and send the processed event to a sink (See Bose: at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2B, Fig. 5, para 50-51, 78, 80, 103, 120, and 134). Bose further discloses aggregating the outputs of the data sinks into a collection (See Bose: at least Fig., 1, para 28, 120, and 134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of Baron with Bose’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the method by allowing the system to process event data, transform, and enrich event data prior to
sending the event to data to a data sink.
The combination of Baron and Bose discloses the limitations as stated above including establishing a connection between a node and a sink node based on stored preference data (See Baron: at least Fig. 6 and para 70-71). However, it does not explicitly teach when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, establishing the connection based on the connection parameters; and when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, generating the connection parameters for
the connection and storing the connection parameters in the memory.
On the other hand, Iko discloses determining whether there is history of previous information of a network connection, if there is then read the stored network parameters and establish a connection (See Iko: at least Fig. 7, para 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of when the data includes connection parameters associated with a previous connection, establishing the connection based on the connection parameters.
Iko further discloses determining if there is not exist history of previous information of stored network parameter, then “generate network parameter”, establish a connection, and storing the network parameters (See Iko: at least Fig. 4A-C, Fig. 7, para 124, 125, and 128) which reads on the limitation of when the data does not include connection parameters associated with a previous connection, generating the connection parameters for the connection and storing the
connection parameters in the memory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron and Bose with Iko’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve functionality of the method and save the user the trouble of inputting network
information and connection parameters again.
Regarding claim 13,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the collection is a
database configured to store processed event data from each data sink of the
plurality of data sinks (See Bose: at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2B, Fig. 5, para 50-51, 78, 80, 103, 120, and 134).
Regarding claim 15,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein data relating to the data source and the plurality of data sinks comprise one or more connection strings associated with the data source and/or plurality of data sinks (See Baron: at least Fig. 1-2, Fig. 4-6, para 4-6, 49, 76-77, and 103).
Regarding claim 16,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the data relating to the data source and the plurality of data sinks further comprises credentials for the data source and data sink (See Baron: at least 57, 76-77, and 103).
Regarding claim 17,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the data relating to
the data source and the plurality of data sinks is received from a connection registry configured to store connection strings and metadata associated with the data source and the plurality of data sinks (See Baron: at least 4, 47, 76-77, and 103).
Regarding claim 18,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein the at least one
processor is configured to process the event data by performing one or more database operations on the event data prior to landing the event data into one of
the plurality of data sinks (See Baron: at least Fig. 1, para 24, 28, 33, 49, 72-78, 103,
108, and 141).
Regarding claim 21,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses wherein event data is received from the data source at a stream rate of 100,000 events per second or higher (Baron discloses a transmission rate (at least para 77). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to stream rate of 100,000 event per second or higher, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claims 23-27,
the scopes of the claims are substantially the same as claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9, respectively, and are rejected on the same basis as set forth for the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9, respectively.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330 and further in view of EL Hattami, US 2024/0330595.
The combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses processing event data. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the processing of the event data comprises serializing the event data into Binary Javascript Object Notation (BSON).
On the other hand, El Hattami disclose serializing event data using BSON (See El Hattami: at least para 13 and 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with El Hattami’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve processing event data by translating event data state into a format that can be stored or transmitted and reconstructed later.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330 and further in view of Chen et al., US 11,113,244 (Chen, hereafter).
Regarding claim 10,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses operations performed on event data. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more database
operations comprise compressing the event data.
On the other hand, Chen discloses compressing event data (See Chen: at least 1:63 to 2:4 and 16:31-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with Chen’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve data transmission by reducing the size of data to be sent.
Regarding claim 14,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses operations performed on event data. However, it does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to process the event data by compressing the event data prior to
landing and merging the processed event data into the database.
On the other hand, Chen discloses compressing event data (See Chen: at least
1:63 to 2:4 and 16:31-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with Chen’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve data transmission by reducing the size of data to be sent.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330 and further in view of Jasper et al., US 2024/0160720 (Jasper, hereafter).
The combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses operations performed on event data. However, it does not explicitly teach process the event data by comparing the event data to reference data to identify whether the event data is fraudulent, and push the event data to a processing system configured to further process the event data is the event data is identified as fraudulent.
On the other hand, Jasper discloses identifying anomaly in the event data by comparing to data patterns and further processing the anomalous event data (See Jasper: at least para 5, 16, 45, 51, and 52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with Jasper’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for
doing so would have been to improve security and integrity of data.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330 and further in view of Noh et al., US 2024/0111611 (Noh, hereafter).
Regarding claim 19,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses to land the processed event data in the data sink of the plurality of data sinks associated with the application (See Bose: at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2B, Fig. 5, para 50-51, 78, 80, 103, 120, and 134). However, it does not explicitly teach processing the event data by creating a view of the event data to be used by an application.
On the other hand, Noh discloses creating a view by converting event information according to a schema define by an application (See Noh: at least para 65 and 75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with Noh’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve integrity and conformity of event data.
Regarding claim 20,
the combination of Baron, Bose, and Noh discloses wherein creating the view of the event data to be used by the application comprises determining a schema associated with the application, and reformatting the event data to fit the schema
(See Noh: at least para 65 75).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron et al., US 2018/0152977 in view of Bose et al., US 2023/0229461 further in view of Iko, US 2015/0201330 and further in view of Kampmann et al., US 2008/0256091 (Kampmann, hereafter).
The combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko discloses a transmission rate. However, it does not explicitly teach to process the event data received at a same rate as the stream rate.
On the other hand, Kampmann discloses processing data elements at a rate matching a predetermined rate of stream (See Kampmann: at least para 86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the combination of Baron, Bose, and Iko with Kampmann’s teaching in order to implement above function with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to
improve control data transmission according to transmission bandwidth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected 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 and overcome the rejections under USC 112(a) and (b) and non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. 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.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights