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 . Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Double Patenting
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).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-21 of copending Application No. 18/965,964. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are determined to be obvious in view of the co-pending application. The difference between claims of the applications is that claim 1 of the instant application is directed to configuring/transmitting the message while claim 1 of the co-pending application is directed to receiving the message. However, the contents of the message (of the instant application) are disclosed by claim 1 of the co-pending application, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a message that is transmitted by a node would have been received by another node. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement an invention directed to a node that received the message that is transmitted by the receiving node.
Claims 2-21 of the instant application are unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-21 of the co-pending application. The differences are obvious to one of ordinary skill for the reason provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 claim 7, the claim recites “the reference time point plus the multiplier times the fixed time interval” in parenthesis. It is not clear whether the text in the parenthesis is a required limitation of 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)(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, 12, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20210099393 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. disclose a communication method at a transmitting node of a communication system, comprising: configuring a header field of an information structure with one or more headers to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure or a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command or a receipt of the information structure (paragraph [0051]; data packet header 300 containing conditional commands) (paragraph [0056]; conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel) (paragraph [0035]; condition indicates an item that must be satisfied before the command is execute) (paragraph [0036]; conditions… state of the network device); and transmitting a message including the header field (paragraph [0048]; data packets with data packet headers are transmitted).
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. further suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on command start header configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at a beginning of executing another command (paragraph [0056]; conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel) (paragraph [0035]; condition indicates an item that must be satisfied before the command is execute) (paragraph [0036]; conditions… state of the network device).
Regarding claim 16, Li et al. further suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a skip header configured to indicate conditional command execution based on a status of a node (paragraph [0036] conditions… state of the network device) (paragraph [0050] determine whether a condition in the conditional command is satisfied based on packet header data, network device 200 state, and/or based on associated parameters in the conditional command. Upon determining that the condition is satisfied… execute the command).
Regarding claim 21, Li et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable device having instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: configuring a header field of an information structure to control at least one of an execution of at least one command specified in the information structure and a delivery of a response to at least one of the execution of the at least one command and a receipt of the information structure (paragraph [0051]; data packet header 300 containing conditional commands) (paragraph [0056]; conditional instruction set contained in the conditional commands field(s) 552 may be encoded in any order as execution of conditional instructions may not be sensitive to order and may even occur in parallel) (paragraph [0035]; condition indicates an item that must be satisfied before the command is execute) (paragraph [0036]; conditions… state of the network device); and transmitting a message including the header field (paragraph [0048]; data packets with data packet headers are transmitted).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Qian (US 20090059834 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest receiving a response message based on one of the one or more headers of the header field being configured to control the delivery of the response to the at least one of the execution of the at least one command or the receipt of the information structure. However, Qian et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest receiving a response message based on one of the one or more headers of the header field being configured to control the delivery of the response to the at least one of the execution of the at least one command or the receipt of the information structure (paragraph [0004]; length field in the first header instructing the receiver how long to wait before sending a response. Messages directed to other receivers will have a header (PSDU) with fields indicating how long to wait (NAV) before sending a response to the message (MPDU) or messages (MPDUs) for that receiver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Qian’s disclosure of receiving a response message. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to receive responses, such as acknowledgments to commands, and Qian et al. would have provided the capability to further schedule responses from nodes.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Weiny et al. (US 20160182177 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a DELAY header configured to include a time delay field specifying a time delay between command reception and command execution by a processing unit. However, Weiny et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a DELAY header configured to include a time delay field specifying a time delay between command reception and command execution by a processing unit (paragraph [0035]; indicator field 444 of example packet format 400 may be a single bit field (e.g., bit 15) that indicates when set or asserted (e.g., it is 1) that a node receiving a packet in example packet format 400 is to delay execution of a command associated with the packet until a synchronized time is reached. TimeStamp field 446… execute the reconfiguration command at the synchronized time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Weiny’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure configured to include a DELAY header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Weiny et al. would have provided the capability for specifying additional parameters to control execution of the commands including the capability to synchronize execution of commands.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Hoang et al. (US 20230281082 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a timeout header configured to identify a maximum time duration allowed between when the at least one command is queued for execution and when the at least one command is executed. However, Hoang et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a timeout header configured to identify a maximum time duration allowed between when the at least one command is queued for execution and when the at least one command is executed (para. [0057] fields: command to be executed, a timeout value specifying how long to wait for the command to execute). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Hoang et al.’s disclosure of implementing a timeout field. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Hoang would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter to control execution of the commands, and it would have been beneficial to include a timeout value to prevent waiting of the command.
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Konda et al. (US 20150100745 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on_timestamp_execute header configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time. However, Konda et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on_timestamp_execute header configured to include at least one field specifying a timestamp based execution time, wherein the at least one command is executed when the timestamp based execution time is a past time (para. [0037] commands. para. [0043] TI field 402 indicates that a command needs to be repeated at a given time interval. TI field 402 may be set to a value of `xx01b` if the time field 404 indicates the time at which the command has to be executed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Konda et al.’s disclosure of implementing a header field of an information structure configured to include an on timestamp execute header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda et al. would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of the commands (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on timestamp discard header configured to include at least one field specifying an execution time at which the at least one command is to be executed, wherein the at least one command is configured to be executed at the execution time or to be discarded when the execution time is a past time. However, Konda et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on timestamp discard header configured to include at least one field specifying an execution time at which the at least one command is to be executed, wherein the at least one command is configured to be executed at the execution time or to be discarded when the execution time is a past time (para. [0037] TI field 402 may be set to a value of `xx01b` if the time field 404 indicates the time at which the command has to be executed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Konda et al.’s disclosure of implementing an on timestamp discard header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda et al. would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of the commands (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a repeat header configured to control an automatic repetition of an execution of the at least one command, wherein the repeat header includes a count field indicating a number of times the at least one command is to be repeated. However, Konda et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a repeat header configured to control an automatic repetition of an execution of the at least one command, wherein the repeat header includes a count field indicating a number of times the at least one command is to be repeated (para. [0043] TI field 402 indicates that a command needs to be repeated at a given time interval. para. [0044] UPIU header 400 may also include a field to indicate a number of times a particular command is to be repeated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Konda et al.’s disclosure of implementing a repeat header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose that commands may have different conditions for execution of the commands, and Konda et al. would have provided the capability for specifying an additional parameter for efficient execution of the commands (para. [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Liu et al. (US 20160360483 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a request timestamp header configured to specify whether the response to the at least one command is to include a timestamp indicating a time when the response was generated. However, Liu et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a request timestamp header configured to specify whether the response to the at least one command is to include a timestamp indicating a time when the response was generated (para. [0125] a request field and/or element bitmap is included in a probe request data unit generated by a client station 25 to request certain fields/elements (such as a timestamp…) within a probe response frame (generated…)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Liu et al.’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure is configured to include a request_timestamp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. discloses that commands may have different parameters. Liu et al. would have provided the capability to request certain fields/elements within a response and reduce the size of a response.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. in view of Godman et al. (US 20060101062 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include on_command_end header configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at an end of executing another command. However, Godman et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include on_command_end header configured to indicate that the at least one command is executed at an end of executing another command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 may specify that a node in a distributed system execute one or more other commands to completion before executing the action defined by the function field 210. dependency field 220 may store a count of commands (for example, wait count) upon which the command should wait upon as well as a list of other commands that are awaiting completion of this command). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Godman et al.’s disclosure of a field of an information structure configured to include on_command_end header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman et al. would have provided the capability to further specify dependency of commands, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on response_start header configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a beginning of the response to the at least one command. However, Godman et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on response_start header configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a beginning of the response to the at least one command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 specifies conditions (also referred to herein as "waiters") for executing the action defined by the function field 210. para. [0072] layout command may be a start command and the determination of where to store data may be done in conjunction with other commands such as the allocate command. para. [0073] rather than executing the commands 604, 606, 608, 610 serially, the distributed file system executes the commands 604, 606, 608, 610 as system resources and usable data becomes available). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Godman et al.’s disclosure of a field of an information structure configured to include on_command_end header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman et al. would have provided the capability to further specify dependency of commands, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on_response_end header configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a conclusion of the response to the at least one command. However, Godman et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include an on_response_end header configured to indicate that the at least one command triggers an execution of at least one other command at a conclusion of the response to the at least one command (para. [0035] dependency field 220 may specify that certain data should be available before the action defined by the function field 210 is executed. para. [0060] specification that one or more other commands in the transaction execute to completion or return a specified result. para. [0071] get data command). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Godman et al.’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose conditions for specifying an order of commands to be executed and discloses that commands may have different conditions. Godman et al. would have provided the capability to specify an addition parameter for specifying execution of the commands including the capability to define different dependencies, which would reduce latency (para. [0010]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lee (US 20220011749 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a no_response header, wherein the no_response header is configured to indicate that the response is to be omitted. However, Lee et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a no_response header, wherein the no_response header is configured to indicate that the response is to be omitted (para. [0074] acknowledgment required field 620 is able to indicate if an acknowledgment message in response to the message is required). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Godman et al.’s disclosure of a field of an information structure configured to include a no_response header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lee would have provided the capability to further specify if a response, i.e., acknowledgement, is required, which may reduce traffic/processing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tanaka et al. (US 6028539 A).
Regarding claim 20, Li et al disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 above without explicitly suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a cancel_command header, wherein the cancel_command header is configured to indicate to cancel a previously sent command. However, Tanaka et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor suggest wherein configuring the header field of the information structure further comprises configuring the header field to include a cancel_command header, wherein the cancel_command header is configured to indicate to cancel a previously sent command (col. 11, lines 48-52. notify (cancel) command is a kind of notify command to request the target to discontinue the execution of the previous notify command. notify (cancel) command is formed by replacing `dummy` in the OPR field in the format of a notify command by `cancel`). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al.’s method/system with Godman et al.’s disclosure of implementing a field of an information structure configured to include a cancel_command header. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. disclose that commands may have different parameters, and Tanaka et al. would have provided the capability to cancel commands, which would stop unnecessary processing (col.7, lines 45-53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-11, 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, and/or the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG-CHUONG Q VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:30-5:30 PM EST.).
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, AYAZ SHEIKH can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
HOANG-CHUONG Q. VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2476
/HOANG-CHUONG Q VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights