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 1-14 are pending.
DOUBLE PATENTING
I. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
II. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
III. Claims 1 and 5-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as indicated below.
Instant Application – 18/936,267
Conflicting Patent – USPN 12,170,590
1, 9, 14. A node to propagate transactions in a network of nodes, each node having one or more connections to other nodes, the node comprising:
a processor;
memory;
a network interface; and
an application containing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a plurality of incoming transactions over a time period;
determine that a stopping condition has been met, wherein based on the stopping condition being satisfied:
combine the plurality of incoming transactions using network coding to generate a composite message;
send the composite message to one or more nodes in the network; and
determine an adjusted time period based on an equilibrium constant parameter and a count of transactions in the plurality of incoming transactions received over the time period.
13. The computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, further comprising determining that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on that determination.
1, 9, 18. A node to propagate transactions in a network of nodes, each node having one or more connections to other nodes, the node comprising:
a processor;
memory;
a network interface; and
an application containing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive a plurality of incoming transactions over a time period;
combine the plurality of incoming transactions using network coding to generate a composite message;
send the composite message to one or more nodes in the network; and
determine an adjusted time period based on an equilibrium constant parameter based on a count of transactions in the plurality of incoming transactions received over the time period; and
determine that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on the determination for exceeding the minimum count.
5, 10. The node claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to iteratively repeat the receiving, combining, and sending operations using the adjusted time period and to determine a further adjusted time period after each iteration for use in the subsequent iteration.
2, 10. The node of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to iteratively repeat the receiving, combining, and sending operations using the adjusted time period and to determine a further adjusted time period after each iteration for use in a subsequent iteration.
7. The node claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to determine an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and to store the average time period in the memory.
4, 13. The node of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and to store the average time period in the memory.
6. The node claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, are to cause the processor to determine the adjusted time period by determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions.
8. The node of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, are to cause the processor to determine the adjusted time period by determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions.
13. The computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, further comprising determining that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on that determination.
17. The method of claim 9, further comprising determining that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on that determination.
12, 8. The computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, further comprising at least one of: initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on one or more throughput estimates for one of more links to said one of the nodes; or initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on an estimated initial time period and an estimated initial count of transactions.
15. The method of claim 9, further comprising initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on one or more throughput estimates for one or more links to one of the nodes.
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on an estimated initial time period and an estimated initial count of transactions.
11. The computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, wherein the method further comprises at least one of: determining the adjusted time period comprises determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions; or determining the adjusted time period is subject to a minimum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be below and a maximum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be above; or determining an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and storing the average time period in memory at said one of the nodes.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein determining the adjusted time period comprises determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the determining of the adjusted time period is subject to a minimum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be below and a maximum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be above.
13. The method of claim 9, further comprising determining an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and storing the average time period in memory at one of the nodes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
IV. 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.
V. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZEGLER et al (US 2013/0107764) in view of HSIAO et al (US 2017/0090955).
a. Per claim 1, ZEGER et al teach a node to propagate transactions in a network of nodes, each node having one or more connections to other nodes, the node comprising:
a processor (Figure 7, paras 0006, 0042, 0050-51);
memory (Figure 7, paras 0050, 0053, 0056);
a network interface (paras 0053, 0056); and
an application containing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor (paras 0042, 0050-51), cause the processor to:
receive a plurality of incoming transactions over a time period (paras 0020-21—receiving data packets over a period of time);
combine the plurality of incoming transactions using network coding to generate a composite message (paras 0016, 0035, 0037, 0054—combining incoming packets using network coding to generate a composite message);
send the composite message to one or more nodes in the network (paras 0016, 0022—send composite message to another network node); and
determine an adjusted time period based on an equilibrium constant parameter and divided by a count of transactions in the plurality of incoming transactions received over the time period (paras 0024-25, 0030-39—determine time period changes based on “m”, that can be fixed and dividing by “m” the multi-packet reception coefficient connoting the number of packets received over the time period).
ZEGER et al teach the limitations as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach “determine that a stopping condition has been met, wherein based on the stopping condition being satisfied”. However, HSIAO et al teach the process of data collection, data analysis and hardware reconfiguration may repeat for different levels of performance events until a terminating condition occurs (para 0016) wherein determining whether a terminating condition has been met, wherein level-by-level operations proceed until one of the following terminating conditions has been satisfied (para 0031).
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 ZEGER et al and HSIAO et al for the purpose of implementing a terminating/stopping condition to determine whether the data collection and analysis should be performed, which is a well-known technique used in the art to limit iterative processes for specific conditions.
Claims 9 and 14 contain subject matter substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
b. Per claim 2, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, HSIAO et al further teach wherein the stopping condition comprises expiry of a time duration since receipt of a first of the plurality of incoming transactions (paras 0029, 0031—detection of time-out and expiration state).
c. Per claim 3, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, HSIAO et al further teach wherein the stopping condition comprises a determination that said one of the nodes is a bottleneck (paras 0016-17, 0026-29, 0031—determination of performance bottleneck identified).
d. Per claim 4, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, HSIAO et al further teach wherein the stopping condition comprises a plurality of new transactions exceeding a maximum number of new transactions (paras 0031-33—monitoring performance objects, events most relevant to performance bottleneck and new sets of performance events).
e. Per claim 6, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, ZEGER et al further teach wherein the instructions, when executed, are to cause the processor to determine the adjusted time period by determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions (paras 0024-39—adjusted time period is a function based on the coefficient parameter divided by the packets).
f. Per claim 7, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node of claim 1, ZEGER et al further teach wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to determine an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and to store the average time period in the memory (paras 0029-31, 0037-39—average time period; HSIAO et al: paras 0015, 0027, 0032-33—adjusting the system at runtime to monitor a performance objects and data that is collected and analyzed).
VI. Claims 5, 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZEGLER et al (US 2013/0107764) in view of HSIAO et al (US 2017/0090955) and KOZAT et al (US 2008/0089333).
a. Per claim 5, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, as applied above. ZEGER et al further teach a repeatable system keeping track of time metrics to increase packet dissemination speed and/or the amount of data transferred per unit of time (paras 0016, 0021-22, 0024, 0031-39, 0054) and a total time period adjustment (paras 0029-30, 0037-39); while HSIAO et al teach repeating the process of data collection, data analysis and hardware reconfiguration for different levels of performance events until a terminating condition occurs (para 0016) and adjusting the system at runtime to monitor a performance objects and data that is collected and analyzed (paras 0015, 0027, 0032-33). However, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al fail to explicitly teach “wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to iteratively repeat the receiving, combining, and sending operations using the adjusted time period and to determine a further adjusted time period after each iteration for use in the subsequent iteration”. However, KOZAT et al teach throughput probing for allowing the source node to adjust its rate during each session and tracking the fluctuations and updating the encoding functions over time (paras 0042, 46, 0100-101).
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 ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al and KOZAT et al for the purpose of iteratively repeating the network coding process and probing in order to optimize the coding functions and continuously adjust the time periods/rates as necessary.
Claim 10 contains subject matter substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
b. Per claim 8, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the node claimed in claim 1, as applied above, while ZEGER et al teach MPR coefficient based on MPR capabilities of each node, taken as the lowest MPR capability of the individual network nodes and random number generation of coefficients (paras 0024-25, 0043, 0048), yet fail to explicitly teach “wherein the instructions, when executed, are to further cause the processor to perform at least one of: initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on one or more throughput estimates for one of more links to said one of the nodes; initializing the equilibrium constant parameter based on an estimated initial time period and an estimated initial count of transactions; and determining that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on that determination”. However, KOZAT et al teach estimating throughput between the networked nodes for determining the network coding function parameters (paras 0046, 0069 and 0104), with estimates for time-averaging capacity, bandwidth and throughput of each link until the end of the previous period for the network-coding function coefficients (paras 0046-51, 0071, 0099).
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 ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al and KOZAT et al for the purpose of using throughput estimates to determine the coefficient/parameter initialization because the estimated throughput provides indicia for predicting the demands necessary for each session and transaction, such that resources and time may be allocated efficiently.
c. Per claim 11, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, as applied above, while ZEGER et al further teach with a total time period adjustment (paras 0029-30, 0037-39). ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al fail to explicitly teach “wherein the method further comprises at least one of: determining the adjusted time period comprises determining the adjusted time period based on the equilibrium constant parameter divided by the count of transactions; or determining the adjusted time period is subject to a minimum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be below and a maximum time period that the adjusted time period cannot be above; or determining an average time period based on a plurality of adjusted time periods and storing the average time period in memory at said one of the nodes”. ZEGER et al teach adjusted time period is a function based on the coefficient parameter divided by the packets (paras 0024-39). KOZAT et al teach minimum and maximum rates for adjusting the time periods (paras 0101-105 and 109).
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 ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al and KOZAT et al for the purpose of determining the min and max time period boundaries based on a coefficient parameter, in order to implement the appropriate coding function based on the conditions and metrics of the networked nodes.
d. Per claim 12, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, as applied above, ZEGER et al further teach with the MPR coefficient based on MPR capabilities of each node and T(i) are initially imposed based on the network size, random number generation of coefficients (paras 0024-25, 0043-44, 0048), yet fail to explicitly teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to initialize the equilibrium constant parameter based on an estimated initial time period and an estimated initial count of transactions. However, KOZAT et al teach estimates for time-averaging capacity, bandwidth and throughput of each link until the end of the previous period for the network-coding function coefficients (paras 0046-51, 0071, 0099).
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 ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al and KOZAT et al for the purpose of using throughput and timing estimates to determine the coefficient/parameter initialization and coding functions because the estimated throughput and timing provides indicia for predicting what will be necessary for each session and transaction, such that resources and time may be allocated efficiently.
e. Per claim 13, ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al teach the computer-implemented method claimed in claim 9, as applied above, ZEGER et al further teach where the determination of transmission time exceeded when source nodes exceed MPR coefficient, network coding usage conditions (paras 0024, 0033-39), yet fail to explicitly teach further “comprising determining that the count of transactions received in the time period exceeds a minimum count to use network coding, and wherein the combining and sending are conditional on that determination”. However, KOZAT et al teach determining via throughput probing when the rate exceeds the minimum to use network coding (paras 0099-109).
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 ZEGER et al with HSIAO et al and KOZAT et al for the purpose of determining when the minimum count boundary has been exceeding in order to implement the appropriate coding functions based on the conditions and metrics of the networked nodes.
Conclusion
VII. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2018/0039667; US 2003/0176931; US 2006/0053136.
VIII. 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 9am-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