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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on Dec. 19, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2314500 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the occurrence of “PLCA” is the first occurrence of the acronym where the phrase should be included; it is suggested to the applicant to change “PLCA” to “Physical Layer Collision Avoidance (PLCA)”.
In claim 1, line 3, the occurrence of “CSMA/CD” is the first occurrence of the acronym where the phrase should be included; it is suggested to the applicant to change “CSMA/CD” to “Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection (CSMA/CD)”.
Claims 2-11 depends directly or indirectly from an objected claim, therefore claims 2-11 are objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 lines 4 and 11, the occurrence of “all the other nodes” lacks an antecedent basis as it is unclear what all the other nodes it is referring to.
Claim 1 line 5, the occurrence of "the frames" lacks an antecedent basis as this is the first occurrence which raises a lack of clarity (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
Claim 1 lines 9 and 16, the occurrence of "the node" is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what node it is referring to, i.e, one of the plurality of nodes or the master node.
Claim 1 line 9, the occurrence of "the network operation mode" lacks an antecedent basis as this is the first occurrence which raises a lack of clarity (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
Claim 1 line 12, the occurrence of "the corresponding node" is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what the corresponding node it is referring to.
Claim 1 line 14, the occurrence of "the external states" lacks an antecedent basis as this is the first occurrence which raises a lack of clarity (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
Claim 1 line 17, the occurrence of "the current configuration" lacks an antecedent basis as this is the first occurrence which raises a lack of clarity (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
Claims 2-11 depends directly or indirectly from a rejected claim, therefore claims 2-11 are rejected.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6,7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong Ok Kim et al. (US 2021/0377343 A1) in view of Piergiorgio Beruto et al. (US 2019/0230705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method for monitoring an Ethernet network, comprising a plurality of nodes (fig. 3, end nodes 1-8) and having a PLCA operating mode (para. [0009], the method for identifying whether a PLCA function operates normally) and a CSMA/CD operating mode (para. [0013], the first node may operate based on CSMA/CD function), each node being defined by an identifier (para. [0081], unique identifiers included in the end nodes), in the PLCA operating mode, a master node sending to all the other nodes a synchronization signal to send the frames thereof (para. [0086], the slave nodes receive beacon from the master node and synchronize its transmission opportunity counter), the method comprising the following operations implemented by each node:
retrieving an internal state of the node describing the network operation mode (fig. 7A step S706, fig. 8 at 870 & para. [0097] at last 3 lines, the master node generates an NM message that has PHY layer collision avoidance (PLCA) function-related information);
transmitting the internal state to all the other nodes, comprising integrating the internal state into each frame sent by the corresponding node (fig. 7A step S707, fig. 8 at 870 & para. [0101] at first 3 lines, the master node transmits the NM message generated to the slave nodes);
analyzing the external states received corresponding to the internal states sent by other nodes (para. [0107], the slave nodes receive the NM message including information indicating the PHY layer collision avoidance (PLCA) function is deactivated and determine to transmit new beacon without comparing; para. [0111] at first 4 lines, perform an arbitration process of comparing identifiers for transmitting a new beacon; para. [0114] at first 4 lines, nodes operate based on the PHY layer collision avoidance (PLCA) function according to the beacon);
and based on said analyzing, reconfiguring the node or conserving the current configuration thereof (fig. 7B at step S713 & para. [0116] at first 3 lines, the master node change configuration to operate as a slave node).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach, “a Half Duplex Ethernet network” and “in the CSMA/CD operating mode, all nodes sending the frames thereof at random time intervals”.
In the same field of operating Ethernet network, Beruto discloses “a Half Duplex Ethernet network” (para. [0001] & [0002], the communication network uses half duplex communication) and “in the CSMA/CD operating mode, all nodes sending the frames thereof at random time intervals” (para. [0002] & [0063], data are frames, the network uses carrier sense multi-access/collision detection (CSMA/CD) for detecting collisions and transmit at random time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ethernet network, as taught by Kim, to include the half duplex network and its CSMA/CD function, as taught by Beruto, for the purpose of enhancing network efficiency when falling back from the PLCA mode.
Regarding claim 2, and as applied to the claim 1 above, in combination of Kim and Beruto, Kim teaches “wherein each internal state indicates the operating mode of the network seen by the corresponding node” (fig. 7A at step S706, fig. 8 at 870 & para. [0097] at last 3 lines, the master node generates an NM message that has PLCA mode).
Regarding claim 3, and as applied to the claim 2 above, in combination of Kim and Beruto, Kim teaches “wherein each internal state further indicates whether the corresponding node receives or sends a synchronization signal” (para. [0071] at first 3 lines, para. [0080] at last 4 lines, each node may be a master node (sending signal) or a slave node (receiving signal); fig. 7A at step S706, fig. 8 at 870, fig. 10 &13, NM message contains master node and slave node information, the master node’s Source_nodeInfo and curMasterNodeID are the same, and all slave nodes’ curMasterNodeID values match the master node’s Source_nodeInfo).
Regarding claim 4, and as applied to the claim 1 above, in combination of Kim and Beruto, Kim teaches “wherein said reconfiguring comprises deactivating the node or shifting the identifier thereof” (para. [0116] at first 6 lines, the master node may change the first local ID and change the master ID).
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to the claim 1 above, in combination of Kim and Beruto, Kim teaches “wherein said analyzing comprises validating comprising selecting a valid state from the set of received states” (fig. 7A at step S707, fig. 8 at 870, fig. 13 at plca_status, para. [0116], after receiving network status, the master node becomes slave node and operates based on the PLCA function).
Regarding claim 7, and as applied to the claim 6 above, in combination of Kim and Beruto, Kim teaches “wherein: said analyzing comprises analyzing at least three external states from different nodes” (fig. 7A master node and 1-3 slave nodes; para. [0107], the slave nodes receive the NM message including information indicating the PLCA function is deactivated and determine to transmit new beacon without comparing; para. [0111] at first 4 lines, perform an arbitration process of comparing identifiers for transmitting a new beacon), and “said validating comprises comparing the external states received and the selection of the valid state corresponding to a common state of a majority of the external states received” (fig. 7A master node and 1-3 slave nodes, fig. 12 & 13, the master node changes its plca_status from ‘false’ to ‘ok’ according to the common plca_status of other slave nodes).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches a Ethernet network, comprising a plurality of nodes (fig. 3, end nodes 1-8) and having a PLCA operating mode (para. [0009], the method for identifying whether a PLCA function operates normally) and a CSMA/CD operating mode (para. [0013], the first node may operate based on CSMA/CD function), each node being defined by an identifier (para. [0081], unique identifiers included in the end nodes), in the PLCA operating mode, a master node sending to all the other nodes a synchronization signal to send the frames thereof (para. [0086], the slave nodes receive beacon from the master node and synchronize its transmission opportunity counter), the method comprising the following operations implemented by each node:
retrieving an internal state of the node describing the network operation mode (fig. 7A step S706, fig. 8 at 870 & para. [0097] at last 3 lines, the master node generates an NM message that has PHY layer collision avoidance (PLCA) function-related information);
transmitting the internal state to all the other nodes, comprising integrating the internal state into each frame sent by the corresponding node (fig. 7A step S707, fig. 8 at 870 & para. [0101] at first 3 lines, the master node transmits the NM message generated to the slave nodes);
analyzing the external states received corresponding to the internal states sent by other nodes (para. [0107], the slave nodes receive the NM message including information indicating the PLCA function is deactivated and determine to transmit new beacon without comparing; para. [0111] at first 4 lines, perform an arbitration process of comparing identifiers for transmitting a new beacon);
and based on said analyzing, reconfiguring the node or conserving the current configuration thereof (fig. 7B at step S713 & para. [0116] at first 3 lines, the master node change configuration to operate as a slave node).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach, “a Half Duplex Ethernet network” and “in the CSMA/CD operating mode, all nodes sending the frames thereof at random time intervals”.
In the same field of operating Ethernet network, Beruto discloses “a Half Duplex Ethernet network” (para. [0001] & [0002], the communication network uses half duplex communication) and “in the CSMA/CD operating mode, all nodes sending the frames thereof at random time intervals” (para. [0002], the network uses carrier sense multi-access/collision detection (CSMA/CD) for detecting collisions and transmit at random time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ethernet network, as taught by Kim, to include the half duplex network and its CSMA/CD function, as taught by Beruto, for the purpose of enhancing network efficiency when falling back from the PLCA mode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong Ok Kim et al. (US 2021/0377343 A1) in view of Piergiorgio Beruto et al. (US 2019/0230705 A1), and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2010/0195489 A1).
Regarding claim 5, and as applied to the claim 4 above, Kim teaches “the master node may change the first local ID” and “the master node may change the master ID”.
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach “wherein said shifting comprises: allocating a new identifier chosen according to the maximum number of nodes in the network when the corresponding node is the master node”.
In the same field of network monitoring, Zhou teaches “wherein said shifting comprises: allocating a new identifier chosen according to the maximum number of nodes in the network when the corresponding node is the master node” (fig. 3A, 3B & 3C, para. [0048] & [0049] & [0050], each node (network interface) has ID ranging from 0 to n-1, where n is the maximum number of nodes; if the master node is replaced, new master node uses ID 0 and the previous master node can use ID n – 1 (the maximum number of nodes in the network)), “and reducing the identifier by “1” for all other cases” (para. [0049], the assignment of slave IDs to network interfaces changes as interfaces go up and down).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s master node reconfiguration method to include the identifier assignment based on the maximum number of nodes in the network and the change of the slave nodes’ identifier as taught by Zhou for the purpose of improving reliability and deterministic of the network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong Ok Kim et al. (US 2021/0377343 A1) in view of Piergiorgio Beruto et al. (US 2019/0230705 A1), and further in view of Ozturk (US 2024/0251382 A1).
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to the claim 6 above, Kim teaches “wherein when the valid state indicates: the PLCA operating mode, the current configuration of the corresponding node is conserved” (fig. 9 & 13, see plca_status, the master node continues operating in PLCA mode when slave nodes are in the PLCA mode), “the CSMA/CD operating mode, the corresponding node is reconfigured by a shift of the identifier thereof” (fig. 12, para. [0115] & [0116], when the master node is in CSMA/CD mode and slave nodes is in PLCA node, the master node changes its identifier).
However, Kim fails to explicitly teach “none of the operating modes, the corresponding node is reconfigured by a deactivation of the node”.
In the same area of network communication systems, Ozturk teaches “none of the operating modes, the corresponding node is reconfigured by a deactivation of the node” (fig. 8 & para. [0093], UE operates in a dual mode network (programmable to have PLCA or CSMA/CD operating mode), the UE moves to inactive state when the UE has no activity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the method of checking valid state of a node and performing node reconfiguration as taught by Kim with the deactivation of the node as taught by Ozturk for the purpose of saving power, improving reliability and enhance the system’s performance.
Regarding claim 9, and as applied to the claim 8 above, in combination of Kim, Beruto and Ozturk, Kim teaches “wherein said analyzing comprises activating the CSMA/CD operating mode when the corresponding node receives no frames in a first time interval” (para. [0094] & para. [0103] at last 6 lines, the master node and slave nodes operate based on CSMA/CD function when they did not receive the first beacon).
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to the claim 9 above, in combination of Kim, Beruto and Ozturk, Kim teaches “wherein following said activating, said reconfiguring comprises shifting the identifier of the corresponding node when the node receives at least one frame in a second time interval, and deactivating the node otherwise” (fig. 7B, first slave node becomes new master node; para. [0115] at first 5 lines, when the new master node sends second beacon, the previous master node receives the beacon and changes its master ID; para. [0083], when the slave node does not receive a beacon, it operates in standby mode (programmable to have deactivated state)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-6:00pm.
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.
/T.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights