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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024, 07/10/2025, and 11/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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, 9-12, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,745 B2 in view of Zheng et al. (US 2013/0215889 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zheng.
Regarding claim 1 of the pending application, by omitting the features of “determine a processor of the device, the role comprising one of a master, slave, or intermediary” and “the action corresponding to modifying a timestamp value in a portion of the packet”, claim 17 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter, with the exception of the features of “receive a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “classify the packet into a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types”.
In an analogous art, Zheng teaches the features of “receive a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “classify the packet into a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types” (Zheng – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0029], note PTP Hardware Processing Engine 110 is used to classify and timestamp incoming and outgoing PTP event messages), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into US 12,199,745 B2 to identify and timestamp packets of interest for enabling time synchronization, traffic shaping, and forwarding (Zheng – Paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 9 of the pending application, by omitting the features of “determining, by a processor of the device, a role of the device, the role comprising one of a master, slave, or intermediary” and “the action corresponding to modifying a timestamp value in a portion of the packet”, claim 1 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter, with the exception of the features of “receiving, by a device, a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “determining, by the device for the packet, a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types”.
In an analogous art, Zheng teaches the features of “receiving, by a device, a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “determining, by the device for the packet, a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types” (Zheng – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0029], note PTP Hardware Processing Engine 110 is used to classify and timestamp incoming and outgoing PTP event messages), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into US 12,199,745 B2 to identify and timestamp packets of interest for enabling time synchronization, traffic shaping, and forwarding (Zheng – Paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 10 of the pending application, claim 3 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 11 of the pending application, claim 1 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 12 of the pending application, claim 1 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 16 of the pending application, by omitting the features of “determine a processor of the device, the role comprising one of a master, slave, or intermediary” and “the action corresponding to modifying a timestamp value in a portion of the packet”, claim 19 of US 12,199,745 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter, with the exception of the features of “receive a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “classify the packet into a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types”.
In an analogous art, Zheng teaches the features of “receive a packet using a precision time protocol (PTP)” and “classify the packet into a PTP message type of a plurality of different PTP message types” (Zheng – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0029], note PTP Hardware Processing Engine 110 is used to classify and timestamp incoming and outgoing PTP event messages), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into US 12,199,745 B2 to identify and timestamp packets of interest for enabling time synchronization, traffic shaping, and forwarding (Zheng – Paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 13-15, and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis et al. (US 7,685,436 B2) discloses classifying a packet based on a lookup table and applying operations such as forwarding.
Tripathi et al. (US 7,944,923 B2) discloses classifying a packet as local traffic or forwarding traffic using a lookup table.
Srinivasan et al. (US 9,692,704 B2) discloses classifying packets into buckets associated with traffic policy groups, and performing an action based on a state lookup table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
