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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to an amendment filed June 12, 2026. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 8 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are now pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 § 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) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crupnicoff et al. (US 2011/0116512 A1), in view of Claeson et al. (WO 2019/233586 A1), and further in view of Branquinho Gomes et al. (US 2021/0212008 A1), hereinafter Gomes.
With respect to claim 1, Crupnicoff discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a destination device, a first data packet from a transmitting device (Abstract and [0016], receiving a connect packet at a target node), wherein the first data packet comprises one or more instructions for establishing a dynamic connection (DC) between the destination device and the transmitting device (Abstract and [0012], first connect packet initiates opening of dynamic connection between initiator and its target);
establishing the dynamic connection between the destination device and the transmitting device based on the first data packet (Abstract and [0012], open a dynamic connection between initiator and target process);
receiving, by the destination device over the dynamic connection, one or more data packets comprising a second data packet transmitted from the transmitting device (Abstract and [0012], receiving first and second requests from initiator),
Crupnicoff does not explicitly teach the second data packet comprising one or more data entries indicative of a transmission time of the second data packet from the transmitting device;
comparing, by the destination device, the transmission time of the second data packet to a threshold time period (T); and
storing, by the destination device, the second data packet upon determining that the transmission time of the second data packet is within the threshold time period (T);
However, Claeson discloses the second data packet comprising one or more data entries indicative of a transmission time of the second data packet from the transmitting device (pg. 4, lines 30-32, timestamp in header of packet);
comparing, by the destination device, the transmission time of the second data packet to a threshold time period (T) (pg. 4, lines 1-16, latency time of packet transmission is compared to threshold value);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine the teachings of Crupnicoff with the teachings of Claeson and include an indication of a transmission time in the packet, in order to provide detailed packet information for packet recovery purposes.
The combination of Crupnicoff and Claeson does not explicitly teach storing, by the destination device, the second data packet upon determining that the transmission time of the second data packet is within the threshold time period (T);
However, Gomes discloses storing, by the destination device, the second data packet upon determining that the transmission time of the second data packet is within the threshold time period (T) ([0082], sending a packet to a queue based on estimated timestamp and packet loss compensation needs);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine the teachings of Crupnicoff and Claeson with the teachings of Gomes and store a packet upon determination of transmission time being within a threshold, in order to later process efficient packets that arrive on time.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Crupnicoff, Claeson, and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Crupnicoff discloses the one or more data packets further comprise a third data packet transmitted from the transmitting device (Abstract and [0016]), and Claeson further discloses the third data packet comprising one or more data entries indicative of a transmission time of the third data packet from the transmitting device (pg. 4, lines 30-32), the computer-implemented method, further comprising discarding, by the destination device the third data packet upon determining that the transmission time of the third data packet is outside of the threshold time period (T) (pg. 10, lines 34-35 to pg. 11, lines 1-5).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Crupnicoff, Claeson, and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Crupnicoff teaches the method further comprising terminating the dynamic connection in response to a termination data packet received by the destination device from the transmitting device that comprises one or more instructions for terminating the dynamic connection ([0014], closing the connection using a disconnect packet).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Crupnicoff, Claeson, and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Gomes further discloses the destination device and the transmitting device are formed in a network having a common global time field ([0005] and [0008]).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Crupnicoff, Claeson, and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 4, wherein Gomes discloses the threshold time period (T) is received by the destination device from a global time field source associated with the network ([0005] and [0008]).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Crupnicoff, Claeson, and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Gomes further discloses one or more data entries of the first data packet comprise the threshold time period (T) (Abstract).
With respect to claim(s) 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20, the computing device and computer product of claim(s) 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 does/do not limit or further define over the method of claim(s) 1-5 and 7. The limitations of claim(s) 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1-5 and 7. Therefore, claim(s) 9-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 1-5 and 7. Please see rejection above.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crupnicoff et al. (US 2011/0116512 A1), in view of Branquinho Gomes et al. (US 2021/0212008 A1), and further in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 2017/0280342 A1).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Crupnicoff and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 4, but they do not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold time period (T) is determined at least in part based upon an average Round Trip Time (RTT) for the network;
However, Sugiyama discloses wherein the threshold time period (T) is determined at least in part based upon an average Round Trip Time (RTT) for the network (Abstract, calculating round-trip time using packet length equal to or greater than a threshold);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine the teachings of Crupnicoff and Gomes with the teachings of Sugiyama and provide a threshold time based on average round-trip time, in order to ensure packet transmission occurs during a typical time length and readily detect any anomaly in transmission time of the packet.
With respect to claim(s) 14 and 19, the computing device and computer product of claim(s) 14 and 19 does/do not limit or further define over the method of claim(s) 6. The limitations of claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 6. Therefore, claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 6. Please see rejection above.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER B. HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6a-2p ET.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/ESTHER B. HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights