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
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
I. 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.
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1 and 12 of 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 limitation(s) is/are: “the processor configured to” in Claim 1 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 102
IV. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
V. CLAIMS 1-6, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KARINO et al (US 2009/0204981).
Per claim 13, KARINO et al teach a communication method causing a computer to execute the following, the communication method comprising:
acquiring packet identification information that identifies a packet received from a transmission source (paras 0355, 0372, 0401-405—packet identifier generated whenever packet is transferred);
storing the packet identification information in a storage area (paras 0364-366, 0387, 0401, 0409, 0411—storing the packet identification information in storage section);
transferring the packet received to at least one other communication apparatus (paras 0019, 0178-183, 0237-238, 0241—transferring the packet to a reception device of another club member);
collating response packet identification information that identifies a response packet from the at least one other communication apparatus with the packet identification information stored in the storage area to determine whether or not the response packet and the packet are the same or corresponding packets (paras 0130, 0156-158, 0279, 0306-307, 0332-333—collated reception data is identified and transferred to the collating section in response to determining whether identical contents have been read); and
transmitting the packet to a transmission destination on a basis of a determination result (paras 0141-143, 0150, 0157-158, 0299, 0305-306, 0308—transmitting packet to club member destination based upon the collation result).
Claims 1 and 19 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 13, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 14, KARINO et al teach the communication method according to Claim 13, wherein the packet identification information includes at least destination address information of the packet received, and a second destination address of the response packet is rewritten to a destination address in the destination address information stored in the storage area and the response packet rewritten is transmitted as the packet to the transmission destination (paras 0143, 0158, 0174, 0227, 0237-241, 0306—packet identification includes destination address and transmission source address, configured to send a packet which is addressed to the current use system to the data link via the transmission interface and to discard packets addressed to other destinations).
Per claim 15, KARINO et al teach the communication method according to Claim 13, wherein the packet is transmitted to the transmission destination and the packet identification information of the packet that is stored in the storage area and is determined to be the same or corresponding to the response packet is deleted, when the determination result is that the response packet and the packet are the same or corresponding packets (paras 0150, 0167, 0178, 0330, 0388, 0395, 0407-408, 0410-411—packet transmission and packet identifier is stored, a copy/replicated or deleted/discarded when the result is the same or a copy).
Per claim 16, KARINO et al teach the communication method according to Claim 13, wherein the packet identification information that is stored in the storage area and corresponds to the response packet is deleted, when the response packet from the at least one other communication apparatus has not been received within a predetermined time after being transferred the packet (paras 0407-408, 0411—deletion of identifier after passing of a predetermined period of time).
Per claim 2, KARINO et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the packet identification information acquisition part acquires information including at least destination address information of a packet received as the packet identification information, and the transmission part rewrites a second destination address of the response packet to a destination address in the destination address information held in the packet identification information holding part and transmits the packet to the transmission destination (paras 0143, 0158, 0174, 0227, 0237-241, 0306—packet identification includes destination address and transmission source address, configured to send a packet which is addressed to the current use system to the data link via the transmission interface and to discard packets addressed to other destinations; paras 0162, 0306, 0385—holding collated reception data, confirmation response packet is stored in the confirmation response buffer to hold for a reception process).
Per claim 3, KARINO et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the packet identification information acquisition part acquires packet identification information based on data of a packet received from the transmission source, and the packet identification information collation determination part performs collation using the response packet identification information based on the data of the response packet (paras 0130, 0156-158, 0279, 0306-307, 0332-333—collated reception data is identified and transferred to the collating section in response to determining whether identical contents have been read).
Per claim 4, KARINO et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 3, wherein the packet identification information acquisition part acquires packet identification information including a hash value of a payload of a packet received from the transmission source, and the packet identification information collation determination part performs collation using the response packet identification information including the hash value of the payload of the response packet as the response packet identification information (paras 0223, 0279, 0308—calculated hash value of packet payload and performing data collation prior to transfer of the reception data).
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 4, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, KARINO et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein when the packet identification information collation determination part collates the response packet identification information with the packet identification information held in the packet identification information holding part and determines that the response packet and the packet are the same or corresponding packets, the transmission part transmits the packet to the transmission destination and deletes the packet identification information of the packet that is determined to be the same or corresponding to the response packet, the packet identification information being held in the packet identification information holding part (paras 0150, 0167, 0178, 0330, 0388, 0395, 0407-408, 0410-411—packet transmission and packet identifier is stored, a copy/replicated or deleted/discarded when the result is the same or a copy; paras 0143, 0158, 0174, 0227, 0237-241, 0306—packet identification includes destination address and transmission source address, configured to send a packet which is addressed to the current use system to the data link via the transmission interface and to discard packets addressed to other destinations; paras 0162, 0306, 0385—holding collated reception data, confirmation response packet is stored in the confirmation response buffer to hold for a reception process).
Per claim 6, KARINO et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising: a timeout processing part that deletes the packet identification information, which is held in the packet identification information holding part corresponding to the packet, when the response packet from the at least one other communication apparatus has not been received within a predetermined time after being transferred the packet by the transferring part ().
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
VI. 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.
VII. CLAIMS 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARINO et al (US 2009/0204981) in view of KE (US 2024/0430209).
a. Per claim 17, KARINO et al teach the communication method according to Claim 13, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the method “wherein the packet received is transferred on a basis of a delay policy, which is information regarding an element that generates a delay”. However, KE teaches implementing a delay monitoring policy to generate a round trip delay (paras 0458, 0482, 0497, 0870).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of KARINO et al with KE for the purpose of provisioning a delay policy in order to generate a delay associated with packet, which is well-known in the art.
Claim 7 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 17, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, KARINO et al with KE teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 7, KE further teaches wherein the delay policy holding part holds the delay policy in which the at least one communication apparatus is associated with a node that performs transmission and reception (paras 0458, 0489, 0494, 0497, 0499—delay held in RAN network element, the second information from the communication device includes a delay monitoring policy).
VIII. CLAIMS 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARINO et al (US 2009/0204981) and KE (US 2024/0430209) in view of BEVERIDGE et al (US 2018/0062928).
Per claim 9, KARINO et al with KE teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 8, as applied above. KE further teaches delay monitoring policy for each data tunnel, uplink and downlink network element (paras 0482-494), yet fails to teach “wherein the delay policy is one of a plurality of delay policies, the delay policy holding part further holds predicted amounts of delay as the delay policies, the communication apparatus further comprises: a required delay amount reception part that receives a required amount of delay; and a delay policy selection part that selects a delay policy satisfying the required amount of delay from the delay policies held in the delay policy holding part, wherein the transferring part transfers a packet on a basis of the delay policy selected by the delay policy selection part”.
BEVERIDGE et al teach the selecting an initial latency policy (para 0143), where the response message includes a new latency policy stored in the local latency policy (paras 0141, 0144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of KARINO et al with KE and BEVERIDGE et al for the purpose of provisioning the selection of delay/latency policies, which is well-known in the art for selecting delay/latency based on the communication preferences.
Per claim 10, KARINO et al with KE and BEVERIDGE et al teach the communication apparatus according to Claim 9, KE further teaches wherein the delay policy selection part selects a delay policy on a basis of an actual record of round trip times (paras 0008, 0033, 0052, 0316-331—performing delay guarantee according to a round trip delay budget, schedule timing for determining delays).
IX. CLAIMS 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KARINO et al (US 2009/0204981) in view of SEO et al (US 2021/0028956).
Per claim 18, KARINO et al teach the communication method according to Claim 13, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the method “further comprising: determining whether or not a communication bandwidth to a transmission destination can be secured, wherein the packet received is transferred to the at least one other communication apparatus or is transmitted to the transmission destination, on a basis of a determination result of whether or not the communication bandwidth to the transmission destination can be secured”.
SEO et al teach implementing determining if the required bandwidth is secured (paras 0045, 0117-118, 0125). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of KARINO et al with SEO et al for the purpose of provisioning if a communication bandwidth to the transmission destination can be secured, which is well-known in the art to control performance and traffic management.
Claim 11 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 18, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
X. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: MORRILL et al (US 2012/0327816), LI et al (US 2022/0264355).
XI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453