DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are presented for consideration.
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,799,949 [ hereinafter as ‘949 patent ] in view of McAuley et al. [ US Patent Application No 2012/0030150 ]. The claims of ‘949 patent discloses all limitations of current application except selecting using one or more learning models, however, McAuley discloses using one or more machine learning models [ i.e. determine, through a learning algorithm, routing paths to the connected communication devices ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0025, 0053, and 0060 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of ‘949 patent and McAuley because the teaching of McAuley would enable to build an independent cognitive learning component into a link state routing protocol [ McAuley, paragraph 0002 ].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Resch et al. [ US Patent Application No 2014/0317226 ], in view of McAuley et al. [ US Patent Application No 2012/0030150 ].
4. As per claim 21, Resch discloses the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a query associated with a specific application [ i.e. DS processing unit A determines time delays to send information to each of the plurality of DS units based on one or more of real time query (e.g. a ping), a lookup, a message, a vault value, a command, a message from the DS management unit ] [ paragraphs 0116, 0121, and 0131 ];
receiving data indicative of a plurality of performance conditions of a plurality of network nodes, respectively [ i.e. determines operational parameters and a plurality of DS units based on performance indicator, the time delay to DS units information, and other metadata ] [ paragraphs 0129, and 0148 ], wherein each respective performance condition of the plurality of performance conditions comprises a respective latency level for a corresponding network node of the plurality of network nodes [ i.e. determine time delays to send information between DS processing unit to each of the plurality of DS units ] [ Figures 18, and 19, and paragraphs 0116, 0138, and 0139 ];
determining a plurality of routing pathways for providing a reply to the query, wherein the plurality of routing pathways each utilize network nodes of the plurality of network nodes [ i.e. determines an availability delay number for each of the DS units of a path to the DS units ] [ paragraphs 0117, 0118, 0141, and 0142 ];
selecting, from the plurality of routing pathways, a preferred routing pathway based at least in part on the plurality of performance conditions of the plurality of network nodes and the specific application [ i.e. select the shortest time delay ] [ paragraphs 0118, 0126, and 0142 ]; and
causing the reply to the query to be routed via the preferred routing pathway [ i.e. DS unit retrieves the pillar slice and sends it to DS processing unit ] [ paragraphs 0120-0125 ].
Resch does not specifically disclose
using one or more machine learning models.
McAuley discloses
using one or more machine learning models [ i.e. determine, through a learning algorithm, routing paths to the connected communication devices ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0025, 0053, and 0060 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Resch and McAuley because the teaching of McAuley would enable to build an independent cognitive learning component into a link state routing protocol [ McAuley, paragraph 0002 ].
5. As per claim 22, McAuley discloses wherein the determining the plurality of routing pathways is performed at least in part using the one or more machine learning models [ paragraphs 0053, and 0078 ].
6. As per claim 23, Resch discloses storing the plurality of performance conditions in a data structure [ paragraph 0060, and 0076 ].
7. As per claim 24, Resch discloses wherein the one or more machine learning models are implemented at a backend system of a wide area network (WAN) [ Figures 2A and 2B; and paragraphs 0052-0056 ].
8. As per claim 25, Resch discloses wherein the plurality of performance conditions comprises a plurality of indicators of network node conditions, wherein each of the plurality of indicators comprises satisfactory network performance, at risk network performance, or underperforming network performance [ i.e. security indicator indicates that a lower level of security is allowable, performance indicator indicates that a lower level of performance is allowable ] [ paragraphs 0096, and 0099 ].
9. As per claim 26, McAuley discloses wherein the plurality of performance conditions is determined by a performance monitor, and wherein the performance monitor generates a respective performance metric indicative of a volume of queries for each respective network node of the plurality of network nodes [ i.e. link cost metric ] [ paragraphs 0070, 0073, and 0089 ].
10. As per claim 27, McAuley discloses polling each of the plurality of network nodes for a data structure indicative of the plurality of performance conditions for routing the reply to the query [ i.e. periodically receiving link state information about one or more of the plurality of communication links from other communication devices ] [ paragraphs 0025, 0051 and 0068 ].
11. As per claims 28-34, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 21-27.
12. As per claims 35-40, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 21-26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baughan et al. [ US Patent Application No 2006/0193333 ] discloses determining routing to be achieved whilst providing a rich set of diverse paths across the network for each route
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights