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 Japan on 2/16/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-022443 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/2025 and 8/12/2024. 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 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 ¶ 6:
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.
In claim 1, the claim limitation "an information acquisition unit configured to acquire competition-related information related to a change in a competition state of communication by a plurality of communication nodes connected to the first network; and a notification transmission unit configured to transmit state change notification based on the competition-related information to at least one of the plurality of communication nodes” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “configured to acquire…configured to transmit…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Rather, the terms "information" in the limitation "information acquisition” and “notification” in “notification unit” merely reiterate a portion of the required function without reciting any structure capable of carrying it out.
Claims 2 recites, “a determination unit configured to determine…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as similar to above claim 1.
Claims 3,5,7 recite “an information acquisition unit” and “a notification transmission unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as similar to claim 1.
Claim 4 recite “a selection unit configured to select…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as similar to claim 1.
Claims 9-11 recite, “a data transmission unit configured to transmit data to be relayed to the second network toward the relay node; and a notification acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the relay node, state change notification indicating a change in a competition state of communication by a plurality of communication nodes connected to the first network” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as similar to above claim 1.
Since the claims limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, claim(s) 1-5,7,9-11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 limitation: specification paragraph 0054-0056 (as originally filed )].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims1-7, 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the device comprising:…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites, “… of the communication node…” in line 3, it is unclear “the communication node” in claim 3 is the same as “a plurality of communication nodes…” in claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-7 are rejected because they depended on the rejected base claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the device comprising:…” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected because it depends on the rejected base claim 9.
Claim 11 recites, “…an own node…” in line 3. It is unclear to examiner that is an own node?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mangetu (us 2009/0290565).
As regarding claim 1, Mangetu discloses an information acquisition unit configured to acquire competition-related information related to a change in a competition state of communication by a plurality of communication nodes connected to the first network (see Mangetu 0009,0029, receives priority for data transmission from terminals); and a notification transmission unit configured to transmit state change notification based on the competition-related information to at least one of the plurality of communication nodes (see Mangetu 0029, the router transmits the priority change request to one of the terminals).
As regarding claim 2, Mangetu discloses a determination unit configured to determine whether the competition state changes, wherein the information acquisition unit is configured to acquire communication state information indicating a communication state of the second network (see Mangetu 0023, the router determine if transmission data volume exceeds the transmission bandwidth provided for the WAN), and the determination unit is configured to use the communication state information to determine whether the competition state changes (see Mangetu 0023, the router dynamically adjusts the desired priority level requested by each of the terminals when determine transmission data volume exceeds the transmission bandwidth provided for the WAN).
As regarding claim 3, Mangetu discloses the information acquisition unit is configured to acquire priority information indicating a priority set for communication of the communication node (see Mangetu 0009,0029, receives priority for data transmission from terminals), and the notification transmission unit is configured to transmit the state change notification including the priority information of a specific communication node that is one of the plurality of communication nodes to a communication node other than the specific communication node (see Mangetu 0023, the router dynamically adjusts the desired priority level requested by each of the terminals when determine transmission data volume exceeds the transmission bandwidth provided for the WAN, and instruct certain terminal/s to change its desired priority level, also see 0029 of Mangetu for similar citation).
As regarding claim 4, Mangetu discloses a selection unit configured to select, among the plurality of communication nodes other than the specific communication node, a communication node having a same communication priority as the specific communication node or a lower communication priority than the specific communication node, as a notification target node, and the notification transmission unit is configured to transmit the state change notification including the priority information to the notification target node selected by the selection unit (see Mangetu 0029, 0032-0034, when the priority level of terminals are competing with each others or the priority are the same values, transmits the priority change request to and instruct certain terminal/s to change its desired priority level).
As regarding claim 5, Mangetu discloses the information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as the competition-related information, request quality information indicating a communication quality required by the communication node (see Mangetu 0009,0029, receives priority for data transmission from terminals, where desired priority is the desired communication quality (see Mangetu 0031)), and the notification transmission unit is configured to transmit the state change notification based on the request quality information of a specific communication node that is one of the plurality of communication nodes to a communication node other than the specific communication node (see Mangetu 0029, 0031-0032, transmits the priority change request to and instruct certain terminal/s to change its desired priority level/communication quality).
As regarding claim 6, Mangetu discloses when the request quality information is changed, the notification transmission unit transmits the state change notification based on the changed request quality information to a communication node other than a communication node in which the request quality information has been changed (see Mangetu 0029, 0031-0034, transmits the priority change request to and instruct certain terminal/s to change its desired priority level/communication quality and receives priority change from the terminal/s).
As regarding claim 7, Mangetu discloses the information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as the competition-related information, change prediction information for predicting a change in the competition state, and the notification transmission unit is configured to transmit the state change notification based on the change prediction information to a communication node currently connected to the first network (see Mangetu 0029, 0031-0034, transmits the priority change request to and instruct certain terminal/s to change its desired priority level/communication quality when determine that the priority is competing among terminal/s and receives priority change from the terminal/s).
As regarding claim 8, limitations of claim 8 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 1 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
As regarding claim 9, Mangetu discloses a data transmission unit configured to transmit data to be relayed to the second network toward the relay node (see Mangetru 0022-0024, terminal/s in LAN communicate with the router to send data toward the WAN network, also see figure.1); and a notification acquisition unit configured to acquire, from the relay node, state change notification indicating a change in a competition state of communication by a plurality of communication nodes connected to the first network (see Mangetu 0033-0034, receive state change request from the router when the router determine the priority level/communication quality when determine that the priority is competing among terminal/s).
As regarding claim 10, Mangetu discloses the data transmission unit changes a communication quality requesting the relay node based on the state change notification (see Mangetu 0034, terminal sends priority change to the router).
As regarding claim 11, Mangetu discloses the state change notification includes priority information indicating a priority of communication between an own node and a competing node that competes with the own node, and the data transmission unit changes a transmission operation of the data depending on a relationship between a priority of communication by the own node and a priority of communication by the competing node (see Mangetu 0029, 0031-0034, terminal change its own priority values and terminal sends priority change to the router).
As regarding claim 12, limitations of claim 12 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 9 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459