DETAILED ACTION
The non-final office action is responsive to the filing of U.S. Patent Application 18/785,543 on 07/26/2024. Claims 1-16 are pending; claims 1-16 are rejected.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 09/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the European Patent Application No. 22198218.4 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Note: “An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 22198218.4 to which priority is claimed has FAILED on 10/01/2024. Useful information is provided at the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program Website (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx),including practice tips for priority document exchange (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx#Ptractice22tips).”
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the non-final office action. 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: “and/or”. It is not clear which one should be used because “AND” connects two or more items together (both are required) while “OR” connects two or more alternatives (implies a choice). Examiner will use “OR”, which represents "A or B or both”, to interpret claim limitations for examination purpose. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: “an interface unit set up for reading (100) a provided latency time specification and/or a bandwidth specification of the data channel for all virtual data paths for the transmission of a bit sequence to be transmitted” and “an initialisation unit set up for setting (102) a packet length for each of the 128 data paths, taking into account four predefined packet lengths of the bit sequence, the packet length being selected (101) in each case by means of a selection unit in such a way that short packet lengths are used for short latency requirements and low available bandwidth and long packet lengths are selected for long latency requirements and high available bandwidth, the data to be transmitted amounting to n * 112 bits +187 bits” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
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.
Claim 1-16 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.
As to claim 1 and 14, claim limitation recites “a setting (102) of a packet length for each of the 128 data paths, taking into account four predefined packet lengths of the bit sequence, the packet length being selected (101) in each case in such a way that short packet lengths are used for short latency requirements and low available bandwidth and long packet lengths are selected for long latency requirements and high available bandwidth, the data to be transmitted being n * 112 bits +187 bits” (emphasis added). It is not clear what n represents. Is n a natural number, an integer, or a real number? That render the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-13 and 15-16 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy the deficiency. Claims 2-13 and 15-16 are rejected under same rationale.
As to claim 14, the claim limitations identified above are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification. However, after review the specification of the instant application, one with ordinary skill in the art fails to identify corresponding structure to perform the claimed function. That renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As to claims 15 and 16, claim limitations recite computer program product and computer-readable storage medium “comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by at least one computer, cause the computer to perform the steps of the method of claim 1.” Hence, the claimed product and medium are software per se. Software comprising a series of executable steps does not fall in any statutory categories of invention (i.e., Machine, Manufacture, Composition of Matter, and Process), thus claims 15 and 16 are non-statutory.
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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0174022 A1 to Sivaraj et al. (hereinafter Sivaraj) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0159150 A1 to Ansari et al. (hereinafter Ansari) and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0353427 A1 to Wu (hereinafter Wu).
As to claim 1, Sivaraj teaches a method for initialising a system arrangement for the packet-based transmission of data on up to 128 virtual data paths via a physical data channel of an automobile with deterministic latency (a method described herein can include, for a network application, identifying, by a system comprising a processor, a characteristic value of a performance characteristic associated with an uplink connection enabled via a network of a user equipment to application server equipment hosting the network application. The method can further include, based on the characteristic value and a criterion, selecting, by the system, a first packet size for the uplink connection. The method can further include communicating, by the system, to the user equipment, the first packet size for use with the uplink connection, Sivaraj, Abstract, [0019]. Note: “these example are non-limiting, and that one or more embodiments can be applicable to other types of applications, including but not limited to other 5G enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) and ultra-reliable low latency communication (uRLLC) streaming applications like video, virtual reality (VR), connected cars, and mission critical communication” in Sivaraj, [0019]), comprising:
a readout (100) of a provided latency time specification and/or a bandwidth specification of the data channel for all virtual data paths for the transmission of a bit sequence to be transmitted (performance characteristic identifier 122 of controller equipment 150 can receive these RAN measurements in real-time, e.g., as Kafka streams. Once identified, in one or more embodiments, performance characteristic identifier 122 can compute and predict the key performance indicators (KPIs). In one or more embodiments, computed and predicted KPIs can include, but are not limited to performance characteristics that are specific to a UE and performance characteristics that are specific to a particular cell. UE specific KPIs can include RAN latency, RAN throughput, and signal strength values such as RSRP/RSRQ, the number of RLC PDU segments per IP packet utilized by the UE, RLC PDU size, and other similar UE performance characteristics. Cell-specific KPIs can include PRB utilization, the number of active UEs utilizing the cell, and other similar cell coverage performance characteristics. In one or more embodiments, the example KPIs discussed above can be relevant to selecting IP packet sizes to improve performance discussed herein, Sivaraj, [0033]-[0041]);
a setting (102) of a packet length for each of the 128 data paths, taking into account three predefined packet lengths of the bit sequence (FIGS. 5A and 5B depict an example relationship between two KPIs and three different potential MTU sizes, e.g., MTU sizes that include small 507A (e.g., 400 bytes), medium 507B (e.g., 650 bytes), and almost maximum 507C (e.g., 1430 bytes). On the chart, label 570 corresponds to aggregate RAN latency in seconds, and label 572 corresponds to segmentation, e.g., average number of RLC PDUs per packet. It should be noted that, the aggregate RAN latency value as a measure of benefit is non-limiting, e.g., end-to-end latency, network throughput and application goodput can all be improved by one or more embodiments described herein, Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055], [0041]-[0046], [0038]).
Sivaraj does not explicitly disclose four predefined packet lengths (emphasis added).
Ansari discloses four packet lengths (As depicted in FIG. 1, each link 120 has an associated MTU size. Specifically, links 1201-1208 have MTU sizes of 1500, 1476, 576, 1070, 898, 868, 1200, and 1208, respectively. As described herein, the MTU size of a link may depend upon the underlying data link layer technology or physical layer technology by which packets are conveyed over the link., Ansari, [0024]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define additional packet length as taught by Ansari to modify the method of Sivaraj in order to select an IP datagram size that will ensure that the IP datagram will not be fragmented.
Furthermore, Sivaraj-Ansari does not explicitly disclose the packet length being selected (101) in each case in such a way that short packet lengths are used for short latency requirements and low available bandwidth and long packet lengths are selected for long latency requirements and high available bandwidth, the data to be transmitted being n * 112 bits +187 bits.
Wu discloses a packet length being selected (101) in each case in such a way that short packet lengths are used for short latency requirements and low available bandwidth and long packet lengths are selected for long latency requirements and high available bandwidth, the data to be transmitted being n * 112 bits +187 bits (type parameters of a packet include a bandwidth parameter, a delay parameter, and a length parameter. The bandwidth parameter indicates whether a to-be-sent data packet has a high-bandwidth requirement, the delay parameter indicates whether the to-be-sent data packet has a low-delay requirement, and the length parameter indicates a length of the to-be-sent data packet. In a possible implementation, to-be-sent packets are classified into a delay-sensitive short packet, a delay-sensitive long packet, and a bandwidth-sensitive packet (which may be a long packet or a short packet), Wu, [0059]-[0070], [0046]. Note: “For example, when a 320-byte check bit is added to every 5120 bytes of data, channel utilization is approximately 94%” in Wu, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select packet length based on bandwidth and latency as taught by Wu to modify the method of Sivaraj-Ansari in order to reduce bit error rate and power consumption.
As to claim 2, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of overhead data is reduced by increasing the packet length (FIGS. 5A and 5B depict an example relationship between two KPIs and three different potential MTU sizes, e.g., MTU sizes that include small 507A (e.g., 400 bytes), medium 507B (e.g., 650 bytes), and almost maximum 507C (e.g., 1430 bytes), Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055], [0038]. Note: overhead data for example IPv4 header is defined. So longer packet means more user data. So the ratio of header to user data is reduced).
As to claim 3, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a path identifier, a sequence number, a cell type, at least one checksum, at least one user data information item and/or a further user data information item are transmitted with the bit sequence to be transmitted (FIGS. 5A and 5B depict an example relationship between two KPIs and three different potential MTU sizes, e.g., MTU sizes that include small 507A (e.g., 400 bytes), medium 507B (e.g., 650 bytes), and almost maximum 507C (e.g., 1430 bytes), Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055], [0038]).
As to claim 4, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the overhead data is 25 or 37 bits (header data, Sivaraj, [0038]; also in Wu, [0062]-[0064]. ).
As to claim 5, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a stored metric is used which indicates which of the four predefined packet lengths is to be selected (Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055]. In view of Wu).
As to claim 6, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the metric designates the respective packet length and takes into account the bandwidth and/or the packet length to be transmitted (Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055]. In view of Wu).
As to claim 7, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a shorter packet length is selected for a low bandwidth (Wu, [0059]-[0070], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select packet length based on bandwidth and latency as taught by Wu to modify the method of Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu in order to reduce bit error rate and power consumption.
As to claim 8, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a longer packet length is selected for a higher bandwidth (Wu, [0059]-[0070], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select packet length based on bandwidth and latency as taught by Wu to modify the method of Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu in order to reduce bit error rate and power consumption.
As to claim 9, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a short packet length is selected for a low number of data to be transmitted and a long packet length is used for a high number of data to be transmitted (Wu, [0059]-[0070], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select packet length based on bandwidth and latency as taught by Wu to modify the method of Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu in order to reduce bit error rate and power consumption.
As to claim 10, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a stored metric is used which indicates which packet length is selected in which value range of the latency requirement and/or the available bandwidth (Wu, [0059]-[0070], [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select packet length based on bandwidth and latency as taught by Wu to modify the method of Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu in order to reduce bit error rate and power consumption.
As to claim 11, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein a stored metric is used which indicates which packet length is selected for which latency requirement and which bandwidth (Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055]. In view of Wu).
As to claim 12, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the four predefined packet lengths are 187 bits, 411 bits, 635 bits and 859 bits (FIGS. 5A and 5B depict an example relationship between two KPIs and three different potential MTU sizes, e.g., MTU sizes that include small 507A (e.g., 400 bytes), medium 507B (e.g., 650 bytes), and almost maximum 507C (e.g., 1430 bytes), Sivaraj, [0051]-[0055], [0038]. Note: Sivaraj does not disclose exact lengths, but it is designer’s choice. So it is obvious).
As to claim 13, Sivaraj-Ansari-Wu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the physical data channel is operated either electrically or optically (radio wave propagation in a fifth generation (5G) network or other next generation networks, Sivaraj, Abstract).
As to claims 14-16, the same reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding system claims 14 and computer program product claim 15, and computer-readable storage medium claim 16. Accordingly, claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivaraj in view of Ansari and Wu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUOLEI ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/RUOLEI ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449 1/29/2026