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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,058,009 in view of FU et al PG PUB 2017/0164386.
Re Claims 1, 12 and 19 of patent ‘009 encompasses Claims 1, 12 and 19 of instant application except “wherein the data management criterion relates to a subscription type/attribute and policy information…specifies a manner as to how the data is to be routed to the second device.”. However, FU et al teaches a network element includes a policy module to control to scheduling priorities for transmitting the data based on the subscriber type, QoS (data management criterion/attribute and policy) to the destination device [0032]. By combining the teachings, fairness and QoS of the UEs can be maintained over the connection. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the “subscription type” into the “management criterion” in Claims 1, 12 and 19 of patent ‘009 to be adaptively control the QoS/fairness based on the “subscription type” as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 of instant application, See Claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 of patent.
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 1-9, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SELFIN et al PG PUB 2019/0342203 in view of FU et al PG PUB 2017/0164386.
Re Claims 1, 12, and 19, SELFIN et al teaches in figure 2, System 200 (a first network component) that includes a processor 201 (a processor) and memory (A non-transitory MRM) for receiving a Trans Req 206 (a data) from Computing node 202-a [0045] wherein the System 200 may be centrally placed in the network (a core network) to control routing [0046] wherein the system 200 performs analyzing of the Trans. Req (the data) that includes policy parameters (a rule) such as payload type (a data payload format), data transfer protocol (a data communication protocol) and metadata [0033 0051] wherein the parameter can further include a device type to be adaptive to device type QoS requirements. SELFIN et al teaches in figure 6, S1025 and S1030, the System 200 determining to communicate the data to a destination device (a second device) associated with a edge router (a second network equipment) in the selected optimal route [0126] based on the characteristic of the Trans Req 206 (a data; a data management criterion).
SELFIN et al fails to explicitly teach “wherein the data management criterion relates to a subscription type…specifies a manner as to how the data is to be routed to the second device.”. However, FU et al teaches a network element includes a policy module to control to scheduling priorities for transmitting the data based on the subscriber type, QoS (data management criterion) to the destination device [0032]. By combining the teachings, fairness and QoS of the UEs can be maintained over the connection. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the “subscription type” into the Trans. Req (the data) to be adaptively control the QoS/fairness based on the “subscription type” as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 7, 9, 15, SELFIN et al teaches in figure 5, the System 200 includes a 214 N.N. (Neural network/AI/machine learning) for analyzing/training the Trans. Req (the data) associated with QoS parameter/Cost metrics [0101]; the 214 (neural network) can determine whether the Trans.Req. (the data includes respective payload/device type, data transfer protocol) satisfies a defined threshold [0093] related to the QoS (the service), in response to determining that the Trans.Req. is satisfied, figure 6, S1025, S1030 teaches the System 200 selecting the optimal route to the destination device (the second device) and initiating the communication of the data to the destination device via the edge router of the core network.
Re Claims 3, 20, SELFIN et al teaches the System 200 determining whether to communicate the data to the destination device (the second device) associated with the edge router (the second network equipment) of the selected optimal route based on the Trans.Req. (the data management criterion/the characteristic and the rule) [0126 also See figure 6, S1025, S1030]; the System determining/identifying a group of data items for the payload type (a information) [0033] and in response to determining the data associated with the payload type to be communicated to the destination device (the second device); figure 6, S1025, S1030 teaches the System 200 selecting the optimal route to the destination device (the second device) and initiating the communication of the data to the destination device via the edge router of the core network.
Re Claim 4, SELFIN et al teaches that the payload type indicates a data parameter of the data (the information) such as standard-deviation of the data over a defined period of time [0093].
Re Claims 5, 18, the payload type format in SELFIN et al can be a binary format.
Re Claims 6, 16, SELFIN et al teaches the data transfer protocol can support TCP/IP [0051].
Re Claim 8, Examiner takes notice that the network function is a virtual network function created in a software-defined network for WAN optimization. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to the virtual network function for WAN optimization.
Re Claim 13, SELFIN et al teaches the Trans. Req. (the information) include respective parameters (item of information) for network associated with data transfer protocol (a first network) wherein the System 200 receiving the Trans. Req. from computing component (the UE), in view of FU et al, the Policy control module 12 performs managing communication of the Trans. Reqs (the respective items of information) to the destination device (the device) via the eNB (the second network equipment) based on the policy to facilitate resource allocation strategy (a second amount of bandwidth utilized by the eNB [0043].
Re Claim 14, SELFIN et al teaches the System determining/identifying a group of data items for the payload type (a information) [0033] and in response to determining the data associated with the payload type in a binary format to be communicated to the destination device (the second device); figure 6, S1025, S1030 teaches the System 200 selecting the optimal route (policy) to the destination device (the second device) and initiating the communication of the data to the destination device via the edge router of the core network in accordance with the data transfer protocol (the information communication protocol).
Re Claim 17, Examiner take notice in response to determining that the information is not to be communicated to the device based on the attribute and the policy. The information can be discarded to minimized storage.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SELFIN et al PG PUB 2019/0342203 in view of FU et al PG PUB 2017/0164386 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Noldus et al PG PUB 2016/0323353.
Re Claim 10, FU et al teaches in figure 3, the UE (the first device) coupled with an AP(access point/a third network equipment) [0005] for forwarding/routing the data to the Policy Control module 12 (the first network equipment) of the core network based on the TCP data network connection. SELFIN et al in view of FU et al fails to explicitly teach “establishment of a PDPC…between the first device and the first network equipment via a configured AP associated with the first network device;”. However, Noldus et al teaches a process for obtaining IP connectivity for the UE whereby a PDPC is established in the telecommunication network between the UE and the serving access point (a configured access point name) [0097]. By combining the teachings, the access point in FU et al can be modified to establish the PDPC connection with the policy control module 12 for establishing QoS IP connection with the destination device. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have established the PDPC connection with the policy control module 12 in the core network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights