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 Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because they contain numerous instances of the text “one or more processors” without explicitly identifying whether the second and subsequent instances necessarily refer back to the first instance. This raises a question of ambiguity as it is possible for this language to encompass embodiments having a single set of “one or more processors” as well as embodiments having multiple sets of “one or more processors.” For the purposes of this action, the claims will be interpreted as encompassing both kinds of embodiments.
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)(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, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US Pub. No. 2015/0063112).
Regarding claim 1, Wu shows a control device (an SDN controller containing software and hardware implementing the units below: see [0032]) comprising:
an acquisition unit, including one or more processors, configured to acquire topology information indicating a connection form of a network and information regarding transfer delay of each transfer device transferring a priority packet and a non-priority packet (acquiring topology information and transmission delay information for routers and switches which transfer packets having different QoS requirements; this necessarily includes packets of higher and lower QoS requirements which can be reasonably considered “priority” and “non-priority” packets: see [0038], [0040], [0043]);
a determination unit, including one or more processors, configured to determine a path or a transmission timing of a flow of the priority packet based on the topology information acquired by the acquisition unit and information regarding transfer delay of each transfer device (e.g., at least determining a path P for a packet flow of a higher QoS requirement packet, including identifying priority-appropriate queues at the various nodes along the path: see [0040]-[0044]); and
a setting unit, including one or more processors, configured to set the path or the transmission timing of the flow determined by the determination unit in the transfer device or the transmission terminal (e.g., at least setting the path by reserving routes: see [0051] and [0054]).
Claims 6 and 7 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
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, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Pat. No. 9,571,384) and Hande (US Pub. No. 2023/0224723).
Regarding claim 2, Wu shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicity show wherein the setting unit is configured to set a timing at which the flow of the transfer device is transferred as the transmission timing determined by the determination unit.
Hande shows wherein a setting unit is configured to set a timing at which a flow of a transfer device is transferred as a transmission timing determined by a determination unit (see [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu with the teachings of Hande in order to ensure the satisfaction of QoS requirements that are set at the level of individual users (see Hande, [0021]-[0022]).
Claims 8 and 12 correspond to claim 2 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 3, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US Pat. No. 9,571,384) and Kwak (US Pub. No. 2020/0367276)
Regarding claim 3, Wu shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly show wherein the setting unit is configured to set a timing at which the flow of the transmission terminal is transmitted as the transmission timing determined by the determination unit.
Kwak shows wherein the setting unit is configured to set a timing at which the flow of the transmission terminal is transmitted as the transmission timing determined by the determination unit (see [0094]-[0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Wu with the teachings of Kwak in order to improve the ability of the system to meet target QoS requirements (see Kwak, [0020]).
Claims 9 and 13 correspond to claim 3 and are rejected for the reasons given above, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination as claimed in each of claims 4, 10, and 11 (and by extension, claims 5, 11, and 15, which depend from those claims). For example, the closest prior art documents of record, Wu (US Pat. No. 9,571,384) and Maruyama (US Pat. No. 11,229,499, corresponding to JP 2022-032955) do not teach or suggest a combination including, as claimed in claim 4, “wherein the acquisition unit is further configured to acquire information regarding a minimum opening time of a non-priority gate in each transfer device; wherein, based on the topology information acquired by the acquisition unit, the transfer delay of each transfer device, and the information regarding the minimum opening time of a non-priority gate, the determination unit is configured to determine a path or a transmission timing of the flow in which a delay time until transmission of the flow from a transmission source node to a transmission destination node is within a target delay time preset for each flow and an opening time of the non-priority gate is equal to or greater than a minimum opening time set in the non-priority gate; and wherein the control device further comprises a resource request unit, including one or more processors, configured to request an external device to add resources when a result calculated by the determination unit indicates that the determination unit is not able to determine the path or the transmission timing of the flow in which the delay time until transmission of the flow from the transmission source node to the transmission destination node is within the target delay time preset for each flow and the opening time of the non-priority gate is equal to or greater than the minimum opening time set in the non-priority gate.wherein the setting unit is configured to set a timing at which the flow of the transmission terminal is transmitted as the transmission timing determined by the determination unit,” or as similarly claimed in claims 10 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the following documents in particular:
CN 113472570 describes a front flow scheduling model based on gate control in an IEEE 802.1Qbv system.
US Pub. No. 2016/0119812 to Owan describes a selectively transmitting data using multiple virtual interfaces.
US Pub. No. 2025/0175435 to Sun describes a centralized user configuration function based on a core network packet delay budget.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Biagini whose telephone number is (571)272-9743. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
Christopher D. Biagini
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Christopher Biagini/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights