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
This action is in response to an application filed June 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 27, 2024 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 7-13, 15-18, 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 Branquinho Gomes et al. (US 2021/0212008 A1).
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); and
maintaining the dynamic connection between the destination device and the transmitting device for at least a threshold time period (T) defining a duration during which data packets are received by the destination device from the transmitting device ([0060], dynamic connection remains in active state until it receives a disconnect packet or time-out period elapses),
Crupnicoff does not explicitly teach wherein each of the data packets received by the destination device from the transmitting device via the dynamic connection during the threshold time period (T) comprise one or more data entries indicative of a time at which the respective data packet was transmitted by the transmitting device;
However, Gomes discloses wherein each of the data packets received by the destination device from the transmitting device via the dynamic connection during the threshold time period (T) comprise one or more data entries indicative of a time at which the respective data packet was transmitted by the transmitting device (Abstract, applying stamps to data packets sent);
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 Gomes and receive data packets which include an entry indicative of a time the packets were transmitted, in order to provide detailed packet information for packet recovery purposes.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Crupnicoff and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Gomes teaches the method further comprising discarding data packets that are received outside the threshold time period (T) ([0054], discarding packet detected to arrive at different time period).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Crupnicoff 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 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 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 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 8, the combination of Crupnicoff and Gomes discloses the computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein Gomes further discloses the method further comprising:
receiving a second data packet comprising one or more data entries indicative of a time at which the second data packet was transmitted by the transmitting device (Abstract, providing timestamps for each received packet);
storing the second data packet in an instance in which the time at which the second data packet was transmitted is in within the threshold time period (T) ([0082]); and
discarding the second data packet in an instance in which the time at which the second data packet was transmitted is outside the threshold time period (T) ([0054]).
With respect to claim(s) 9-13, 15-18, and 20, the computing device and computer product of claim(s) 9-13, 15-18, and 20 does/do not limit or further define over the method of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8. The limitations of claim(s) 9-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are essentially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8. Therefore, claim(s) 9-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8. 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
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 February 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights