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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/24, including preliminary amendments filed on 12/02/24, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 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 cited references fail to anticipate or render the claimed subject matter (combined with other limitations claimed in the claimed subject matter) obvious over any of the prior art of record, either alone or in combination. Therefore, when taken as a whole application, and incorporating all the respective limitations, none of the prior art discloses the features as claimed. For instance, although Wang and Chai disclose delay and compensation determinations as recited in the independent claims, as well as dependent claims 8, 11, and 18, they do not disclose the detailed limitations and specific relationships as recited in these claims. Consequently, these claims are allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, and 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210152451 A1, used as translation to previously published CN 110858811 A and cited by Applicant of Record) in view of Chai (US 20210058812 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a communication device [fig. 16, 19], comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 19 no. 910] configured to store instructions [fig. 11]; and
at least one processor [fig. 19 no. 930] coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication device to:
obtain an end-to-end target delay [fig. 12, 15];
obtain at least one first transmission delay, wherein each of the at least one first transmission delay indicates a transmission delay of a … service in a first communication apparatus (Service flow delay [fig. 11 S110, 120, Abstract, par. 0223] and DL/UL delays [fig. 12, 15, Abstract, par. 0223]);
obtain a second transmission delay of the … service in a sink node (Service flow delay [fig. 11 S110, 120, Abstract, par. 0223] and DL/UL delays, where the sink is the client [fig. 12, 15, Abstract, par. 0223]); and
determine, based on the end-to-end target delay, the at least one first transmission delay, and the second transmission delay, a delay compensation value for performing delay compensation on the … service in the sink node (The network device uses the compensation value of the client (i.e., target), along with the transmission delay to calculate the undetermined delay (i.e., compensates) [par. 0239]).
Although Wang discloses service transmission delays, as discussed above, Wang does not explicitly disclose fine-granularity. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chai.
In the same field of endeavor, Chai discloses:
fine-granularity [par. 0227, 376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Chai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of coping with different network app scenarios [Chai par. 0227].
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses a first communication apparatus [fig. 16, 19] comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 19 no. 910] configured to store instructions [fig. 11]; and
at least one processor [fig. 19 no. 930] coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the first communication apparatus to:
determine a first transmission delay of a … service in the first communication apparatus (Service flow delay [fig. 11 S110, 120, Abstract, par. 0223] and DL/UL delays [fig. 12, 15, Abstract, par. 0223]); and
send the first transmission delay to a second communication apparatus [par. 0227-229].
Although Wang discloses service transmission delays, as discussed above, Wang does not explicitly disclose fine-granularity. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chai.
In the same field of endeavor, Chai discloses:
fine-granularity [par. 0227, 376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Chai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of coping with different network app scenarios [Chai par. 0227].
Regarding claim 8, Wang and Chai disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang and Chai further disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first communication apparatus to further obtain the first transmission delay using the following formula:
Nodedelay = T2 – T1 ([Wang par. 0265, 269-274, 279-281] where one of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with such a calculation),
wherein Nodedelay is the first transmission delay, T1 is a first moment at which the first communication apparatus receives the fine-granularity [Chai, as discussed above] service, and T2 is a second moment at which the first communication apparatus sends the fine-granularity [Chai, as discussed above] service [Wang fig. 12, 15].
Regarding claim 11, Wang and Chai disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang and Chai further disclose:
wherein the first communication apparatus is an intermediate node [Wang fig. 12, 15], and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the first communication apparatus to:
receive, from a previous-hop node, a second transmission delay of the fine- granularity [Chai, as discussed above] service from a source node to the previous-hop node [Wang fig. 12, 15]; and
send the first transmission delay and the second transmission delay to a next-hop node [Wang fig. 12, 15].
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a communication apparatus [fig. 16, 19] comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [fig. 19 no. 910] configured to store instructions [fig. 11]; and
at least one processor [fig. 19 no. 930] coupled to the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus to:
determine a first transmission delay of a … service in the communication apparatus (Service flow delay [fig. 11 S110, 120, Abstract, par. 0223] and DL/UL delays [fig. 12, 15, Abstract, par. 0223]); and
perform delay compensation on the … service based on a target delay of a node and the first transmission delay (The network device uses the compensation value of the client (i.e., target), along with the transmission delay to calculate the undetermined delay (i.e., compensates) [par. 0239]).
Although Wang discloses service transmission delays, as discussed above, Wang does not explicitly disclose fine-granularity. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Chai.
In the same field of endeavor, Chai discloses:
fine-granularity [par. 0227, 376].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Chai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of coping with different network app scenarios [Chai par. 0227].
Regarding claim 18, Wang and Chai disclose everything claimed, as applied above.
Wang and Chai further disclose:
wherein the communication apparatus is a sink node [Wang fig. 12, 15], and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the communication apparatus to:
determine a delay compensation value based on the target delay and the first transmission delay (The network device uses the compensation value of the client (i.e., target), along with the transmission delay to calculate the undetermined delay (i.e., compensates) [Wang par. 0239]); and
further perform the delay compensation on the fine-granularity [Chai, as discussed above] service based on the delay compensation value (The network device uses the compensation value of the client (i.e., target), along with the transmission delay to calculate the undetermined delay (i.e., compensates) [Wang par. 0239]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights