DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/16/2024. Claims 1 and through 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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.
Double Patenting
4. 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, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No [11,689,277 B2-hereafter Zeng]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8, and 15 have broadened claim 1 of Zeng by eliminating the limitation “receiving an air traffic control message” and eliminating air traffic control message from the remaining limitation of claim 1 of Zeng. In addition, the air traffic message has been broadened to a network message. In addition, the explicit step of copying the air traffic control message to produce a number of copied messages has been broaden to “generate a number of parallel messages from the network message, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is a copy of the network message” where the explicit copying the air traffic control message, it is replaced with inherent a copy of the network message.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No [11,689,277 B2-hereafter Zeng]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are related to a mobile vehicle an aircraft and selection of parallel transmission links and a latency of the number of parallel transmission links determination can be derived from claim 1 of Zheng, although claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have reworded the limitations of claim 1 of Zheng.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
The claim 15 is drawn to a router (machine). Machine - a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burrv. Duryee, 68 U.S. (lWall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863). This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683 (1854). [Emphasis added].[MPEP 2106.03].
In other words, a machine must consist of more than one parts. However, the claim 15 does not recite any parts of said machine that perform the functions. Since the claims are drawn to a machine without any parts, the claims are indefinite.
This rejection may be overcome by adding an additional structure to the machine as claimed to be consistent with the definition above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giroir (US 6,535,923 B1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2011/0170860 A1) and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 8,331,926 B2).
For claim 1 Giroir teaches a method for optimizing transmission of a network message (column 3 lines 37-38 “NETWORK CONTROL MESSAGE”) , the method comprising:
selecting a number of parallel transmission links from a plurality of available parallel transmission links for transmitting the network message over a sub-network for a vehicle, wherein the sub-network comprises the plurality of available parallel transmission links (column 3 lines 31-32 “network designer requirements for selecting eligible links”, column 4 lines 1-15 “parallel links selection from plurality parallel links to carry replicated control network message”, and column 8 lines 14-15 “The network design algorithm now proceeds to selecting the best links/Nodes combinations…selected links are those that are now defined by the algorithm as eligible”), and wherein the selecting further comprises:
calculating the number of parallel transmission links, wherein the number of parallel transmission links is calculated based on the number of parallel transmission links meeting an availability requirement and a latency requirement for transmitting the network message, and wherein the number of parallel transmission links is different from the plurality of available parallel links (column 4 lines 1-15 “parallel links selection from plurality parallel links to carry replicated control network message”, column 7 lines 56-60 “the next operation (503) consists in computing an "equivalent link weight" for all parallel Transmission Groups (TGs). The equivalent weight is obtained by summing
up the weight associated to each individual link composing the parallel Transmission Group (TG).”, column 2 line 64 “available parallel link”, column 3 lines 25-30 “parallel links definition and selection”, and column 8 lines 59 -65 “path selection with sufficient redundancy requirement”);
generate a number of parallel messages from the network message, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is a copy of the network message, wherein the number of parallel messages matches the number of parallel transmission links (column 2 lines 58-59 “number of parallel links” and column 3 line 60 to column 4 line 5 “network message replicated by the sender onto all the links”); and
transmitting the number of parallel messages using the number of parallel transmission links, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is transmitted through each parallel transmission link of the number of parallel transmission links (column 3 line 60 to column 4 line 5 “network message replicated by the sender onto all the links”).
Giroir is silent about latency measurement.
However, Smith wherein the controller is configured to transmit and receive measured or manually entered latencies associated with the plurality of links via messages in the signaling and routing protocol; and wherein the controller is configured to utilize the latencies in route selection of the sub network connections (Smith: paragraph 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Smith in the parallel line selection of Giroir in order to utilize the latencies in the route selection of the sub-network connection (Smith: paragraph 4).
Giroir and Smith does not explicitly teach the method is used for a vehicle.
However, Mitchell teaches provide parallel lines of communication between airplane 4 and ground system 26. This configuration of multiple clients in communication with one or more access points facilitates providing quicker data transfer between a vehicle and a ground system than an AGSC system that includes a single connection between a vehicle and a ground system (Mitchell: column 4 lines 24-30).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Smith in the combined parallel line selection of Smith and Giroir in order to facilitates providing quicker data transfer between a vehicle and a ground system (Smith: paragraph 4).
For claim 8 Giroir in view of Smith further in view of Mitchell teaches a router device for optimizing transmission of a network message (as discussed in claim 1), comprising:
a non-transitory processor (as discussed in claim 1) configured to:
select a number of parallel transmission links from a plurality of available parallel transmission links for transmitting the network message over a sub-network for a vehicle, wherein the sub-network comprises the plurality of available parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1), and wherein the selecting further comprises:
calculating the number of parallel transmission links, wherein the number of parallel transmission links is calculated based on the number of parallel transmission links meeting an availability requirement and a latency requirement for transmitting the network message, and wherein the number of parallel transmission links is different from the plurality of available parallel links (as discussed in claim 1);
generate a number of parallel messages from the network message, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is a copy of the network message, wherein the number of parallel messages matches the number of parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1); and
transmit the number of parallel messages using the number of parallel transmission links, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is transmitted through each parallel transmission link of the number of parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 15 Giroir in view of Smith further in view of Mitchell teaches a non-transitory tangible computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device (as discussed in claim 1), causes at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
selecting a number of parallel transmission links from a plurality of available parallel transmission links for transmitting the network message over a sub-network for a vehicle, wherein the sub-network comprises the plurality of available parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1), and wherein the selecting further comprises:
calculating the number of parallel transmission links, wherein the number of parallel transmission links is calculated based on the number of parallel transmission links meeting an availability requirement and a latency requirement for transmitting the network message, and wherein the number of parallel transmission links is different from the plurality of available parallel links (as discussed in claim 1);
generate a number of parallel messages from the network message, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is a copy of the network message, wherein the number of parallel messages matches the number of parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1); and
transmitting the number of parallel messages using the number of parallel transmission links, wherein each parallel message of the number of parallel messages is transmitted through each parallel transmission link of the number of parallel transmission links (as discussed in claim 1).
For claims 2, 9, and 15 Giroir in view of Smith further in view of Mitchell teaches the method, wherein the vehicle is a mobile vehicle (as discussed in claim 1).
For claims 3, 10, and 16 Giroir in view of Smith further in view of Mitchell teaches the method, wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (as discussed in claim 1).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights