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 .
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 3, 5, 12, 14, 19 and 21 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.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, the claim is unclear. For example “calculate an occurrence frequency of each such time unit”, where it is unclear what is meant by “each such time unit” which hasn’t been mentioned in claim 3 or independent claim 1, what time unit?
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 21, the claim uses broad and vague timing language and it is unclear what is meant by the limitation. For example, “the relationship between the arrival time of each time unit” is unclear.
Claim 3/12/19 recites the limitation "the time span" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5/14/21 recites the limitation "the arrival time of each time unit" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5/14/21 recites the limitation "the time span" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5/14/21 recites the limitation "the cumulative relative frequency" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zohar et al (US 2023/0216804, hereinafter Zohar, claiming priority date of provisional application 63/296,471).
Regarding claim 1, Zohar discloses an analysis device (node, Fig. 5) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions and at least one processor (processing and memory, Fig. 10) configured to execute the instructions to calculate, based on the difference in arrival times of communication packets between a first communication device and a second communication device connected via a communication network, characteristic information on the arrival time of each of the different communication paths in the communication network (measuring latency difference between first and second routing paths includes determining a difference between an arrival time of a packet and a corresponding duplicate packet, Para [0021], collecting timing statistics for disjointed paths based on differences in arrival times of one or more packets, Para [0037]. Also see Para [0022, 38] from the provisional application).
Regarding claim 9, Zohar discloses an analysis method comprising calculating, based on the difference in arrival times of communication packets between a first communication device and a second communication device connected via a communication network, characteristic information on the arrival time of each of the different communication paths in the communication network (measuring latency difference between first and second routing paths includes determining a difference between an arrival time of a packet and a corresponding duplicate packet, Para [0021], collecting timing statistics for disjointed paths based on differences in arrival times of one or more packets, Para [0037]. Also see Para [0022, 38] from the provisional application).
Regarding clam 10, Zohar discloses a non-transitory storage medium (computer readable storage medium, Para [0061]) that stores a program for causing a computer of an analysis device to execute calculating, based on the difference in arrival times of communication packets between a first communication device and a second communication device connected via a communication network, characteristic information on the arrival time of each of the different communication paths in the communication network (measuring latency difference between first and second routing paths includes determining a difference between an arrival time of a packet and a corresponding duplicate packet, Para [0021], collecting timing statistics for disjointed paths based on differences in arrival times of one or more packets, Para [0037]. Also see Para [0022, 38] from the provisional application).
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 2, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zohar and in view of Dongare et al (US 2022/0317236, hereinafter Dongare).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 23, Zohar discloses the analysis device/method/medium according to claim 1/9/10, wherein the arrival time is the arrival time calculated by the difference between the transmission time in a first communication device of a communication packet sent from the first communication device to a second communication device and the reception time in the first communication device of the communication packet that the second communication device responded to the first communication device. Dongare discloses time of arrival is the timing of signals arriving from transmitting device to the receiving device, where the message includes a time stamp of the transmission time, Para [0028], and the reverse case where the original transmission device determines the time of arrival of a packet from the reception device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Dongare in the system of Zohar in order to improve timing synchronization schemes and determine device location.
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 24, Zohar discloses the analysis device/method/medium according to claim 1/9/10, but not wherein the arrival time is the arrival time calculated by the difference between the transmission time in a first communication device of a communication packet sent from the first communication device to a second communication device and the reception time at which the second communication device received the communication packet. Dongare discloses time of arrival is the timing of signals arriving from transmitting device to the receiving device, where the message includes a time stamp of the transmission time, Para [0028].
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, Zohar discloses the analysis device/method/medium according to claim 1/9/10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to calculate a representative value of the arrival time of each of the different communication paths based on the arrival time of each of the communication paths (measure latency based on determining difference between arrival times of packets on first and second routing paths, Para [0021], collecting stats on TCP flow such as latency, jitter, loss, Para [0037], obvious representative value can be calculated).
Claims 4, 6, 13, 15, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zohar and in view of Dongare and in view of Kloeden et al (US 2015/0281038, hereinafter Kloeden).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 20, Zohar discloses the analysis device/method/medium according to claim 1/9/10, but not wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on the characteristic information on the arrival time of the communication path, an anomaly of the communication path. Kloeden discloses the arrival time of an outlier is compared to the arrival time of other data packets, Para [0018], obvious to one of ordinary skill of determining an outlier arrival time compared to the typical arrival time of a packet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Kloeden in the system of Zohar in view of Dongare in order to identify deviations from expected performance in communication paths for better routing.
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 22, Zohar discloses the analysis device/method/medium according to claim 1/9/10, but not wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine, based on a representative value of the arrival time of the communication path, an anomaly of the communication path. Kloeden discloses the arrival time of an outlier is compared to the arrival time of other data packets, Para [0018], obvious to one of ordinary skill of determining an outlier arrival time compared to the typical arrival time of a packet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:30-18:00 (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached on (571) 272-3155. The fax 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.
/KEVIN M CUNNINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights