DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 have been examined and 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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claim 5 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome and if claim 5 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “section control units” in claims 1-2 and 6; “switching destination instruction unit” in claims 1 and 6-7; “delay information acquisition unit” and “switching determination unit” in claim 6; and “optimization unit” in claim 7.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 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 limitations “section control units” in claims 1-2 and 6; “switching destination instruction unit” in claims 1 and 6-7; “delay information acquisition unit” and “switching determination unit” in claim 6; and “optimization unit” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While claim 1 recites “a processor”, the claimed “processor” is only included in the integrated control unit, and is not included in the units listed above. The specification does not disclose any structure that could reasonably be interpreted as the corresponding structures for the “section control units” in claims 1-2 and 6; “switching destination instruction unit” in claims 1 and 6-7; “delay information acquisition unit” and “switching determination unit” in claim 6; and “optimization unit” in claim 7. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 3-5 fail to remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 2 and are rejected.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 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. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 recite the limitation “optimal guaranteed delay time”. The term “optimal” in claims 1-2 and 6-8 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that claims 3-5 also recite the limitation “optimal guaranteed delay time”. However, unlike claims 1-2 and 6-8, claims 3-5 recite limitations that describe how the “optimal guaranteed delay time” is determined. Therefore, claims 3-5 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites “proportionally dividing a surplus to the minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section”. It is unclear what this limitation means. It is unclear how a surplus is divided “to” the minimum required guaranteed delay time”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “proportionally dividing a surplus by the minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section”. Dependent claim 5 fails to remedy the deficiency of claim 4 and is rejected.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (U.S. PGPub 2006/0050635).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Yamada teaches A communication system in which a plurality of networks each having a detour within an end-to-end distance are formed, the communication system comprising: a plurality of section control units that perform path control for each of sections with a network having a detour, the sections being obtained by partitioning the communication system; and an integrated control unit that controls the plurality of section control units, wherein the integrated control unit includes a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to: (Yamada, see fig. 1 plurality of links (sections)); see figs. 3-5; see abstract where delay guarantee path setting system... selects, upon receiving the delay guarantee message, a path that complies with requests in the received delay guarantee message, and has the weighted value of a link in the path which meets a predetermined condition...; see paragraph 0130-0131 detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3)...; see paragraph 0089 where the system is configured by the respective nodes (plurality of section control units) of the network 20 and the NMS 51.)
determines an optimal guaranteed delay time for each section to satisfy an end-to-end guaranteed delay time provided by a service, and (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see claim 2 where a total delay of a minimum delay path having a minimum sum of the delays of links (optimal guaranteed delay time for each section/link) in the path in the segment connecting two of the plurality of nodes…; see paragraphs 0095-0096 where a given segment including the link in question... for a path having the minimum total delay time, out of the paths connecting between the start-point node and the terminal-point node, i.e., a so-called minimum delay path (set as a minimum delay path 1)...)
notifies the plurality of section control units of the optimal guaranteed delay time for each section, and (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0087 where receiving a request to connect between a node as a start-point node and a node as a terminal-point node according to a required bandwidth and permissible delay time...NMS 51 sends an instruction to set a traffic transfer path in the respective nodes.; see paragraph 0089 where the system is configured by the respective nodes (plurality of section control units) of the network 20 and the NMS 51.)
the plurality of section control units each include a switching destination instruction unit that instructs a switching destination to switch to a path satisfying the optimal guaranteed delay time notified from the integrated control unit. (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0130 where determines through detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3). In short, the system searches for a path having the total delay time for each path (path 1: 20 ms, path 2: 120 ms, path 3: 120 ms) which is shorter than the requested delay time of 200 ms....; see paragraph 0135 where the system selects the path 3 and allows acceptance of the delay guarantee path setting request...; see also paragraph 0087; see paragraph 0089 where the system is configured by the respective nodes (plurality of section control units) of the network 20 and the NMS 51.)
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches wherein the computer program instructions further perform to collects configuration information regarding a configuration of each section from each of the plurality of section control units, and (Yamada, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0109-0114 a link as a target of weighted value calculation is selected (S111 of FIG. 2)….paths (route) for connecting between the start-point node 1 and the terminal-point node 5 are detected...Among those paths, a minimum delay path is selected (S113 of FIG. 2). In other words, the path 1 is selected, and the total delay time equals 20 ms (S114 of FIG. 2; T1=20 ms)...)
calculates a minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section on the basis of the collected configuration information, and (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0130 where determines through detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3). In short, the system searches for a path having the total delay time for each path (path 1: 20 ms, path 2: 120 ms, path 3: 120 ms) which is shorter than the requested delay time of 200 ms....; see paragraph 0135 where the system selects the path 3 and allows acceptance of the delay guarantee path setting request...)
determines the optimal guaranteed delay time for each section using the guaranteed delay time and the minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section. (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0130 where determines through detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3). In short, the system searches for a path having the total delay time for each path (path 1: 20 ms, path 2: 120 ms, path 3: 120 ms) which is shorter than the requested delay time of 200 ms....; see paragraph 0135 where the system selects the path 3 and allows acceptance of the delay guarantee path setting request...)
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches wherein the computer program instructions further determines the minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section as the optimal guaranteed delay time for each section when a total sum of the minimum required guaranteed delay times for each section is the same value as the guaranteed delay time. (Yamada, see figs. 1-3; see paragraph 0109-0114 a link as a target of weighted value calculation is selected (S111 of FIG. 2)….paths (route) for connecting between the start-point node 1 and the terminal-point node 5 are detected...Among those paths, a minimum delay path is selected (S113 of FIG. 2). In other words, the path 1 is selected, and the total delay time equals 20 ms (S114 of FIG. 2; T1=20 ms)...)
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches wherein the computer program instructions further determines the optimal guaranteed delay time for each section by adding a value obtained by proportionally dividing a surplus to the minimum required guaranteed delay time for each section when a total sum of the minimum required guaranteed delay times for each section is less than the guaranteed delay time. (Yamada, see figs. 1-3; see paragraph 0063 where by dividing the weighted value of each link by the available bandwidth of the link, selects, in receiving the delay guarantee message, a path having the minimum total cost value derived by summing the cost values of the respective links on the path, among the paths that reply with the segment, requested delay, and requested bandwidth in the received delay guarantee message...; see paragraphs 0100-0103 where calculation is performed on every segment and the calculation results may be summed...for each link in consideration of delay characteristics with a view to accepting as many the delay guarantee path setting requests...a value obtained by dividing the weighted value of each link...)
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches wherein the plurality of section control units each further include a delay information acquisition unit that acquires information regarding a delay time of a path through which a packet passes among paths in a managed section, and (Yamada, see figs. 1-2; see paragraph 0109-0114 a link as a target of weighted value calculation is selected (S111 of FIG. 2)….paths (route) for connecting between the start-point node 1 and the terminal-point node 5 are detected...Among those paths, a minimum delay path is selected (S113 of FIG. 2). In other words, the path 1 is selected, and the total delay time equals 20 ms (S114 of FIG. 2; T1=20 ms)...)
a switching determination unit that determines whether or not switching of a path is necessary on the basis of the optimal guaranteed delay time notified from the integrated control unit and the delay time, and (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0130 where determines through detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3). In short, the system searches for a path having the total delay time for each path (path 1: 20 ms, path 2: 120 ms, path 3: 120 ms) which is shorter than the requested delay time of 200 ms....; see paragraph 0135 where the system selects the path 3 and allows acceptance of the delay guarantee path setting request...)
the switching destination instruction unit instructs the switching destination to switch to the path satisfying the optimal guaranteed delay time when the switching determination unit determines that switching of the path is necessary. (Yamada, see figs. 3-5; see paragraph 0130 where determines through detection whether or not there is a path that complies with the requested delay time of 200 ms in the request 1 (S103 of FIG. 3). In short, the system searches for a path having the total delay time for each path (path 1: 20 ms, path 2: 120 ms, path 3: 120 ms) which is shorter than the requested delay time of 200 ms....; see paragraph 0135 where the system selects the path 3 and allows acceptance of the delay guarantee path setting request...)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPub 2011/0170860, which describes systems and methods for making latency measurements and using these measurements in routing in optical networks;
U.S. PGPub 2013/0136067, which describes an apparatus and method of determining an allocation of data across multiple data communications networks; and
U.S. PGPub 2020/0162352, which describes a method for monitoring performance of an application system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-5PM.
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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (571) 272-3889. 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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443