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 21-40 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/614,833 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. (U.S. PN: 12,259,782)).
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,782.
For example, claim 21 of the present application teaches “A system comprising: a processor configured to generate a checksum according to a header field that is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks, wherein a checksum seed of the header field is generated such that the checksum of the header field is equal to zero”. Whereas claim 1 of (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) teaches “A system comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit a data block and a header block, wherein a checksum seed of the header block is generated such that a checksum of the header block, generated according to the checksum seed, is equal to zero; and a processor configured to generate the checksum according to a pre-determined header field that is not expected to change from a transmission of a first data block to a transmission of a second data block.”
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 21 broadens the scope of claim 1 of the (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) by eliminating several imitations. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) read on the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
"A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
For example, claim 31 of the present application teaches “A method comprising: generating a checksum seed of a header field such that a checksum of the header field is equal to zero; and generating the checksum of the header field, wherein the header field is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks.”. Whereas claim 10 of (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) teaches “A method comprising: generating a checksum seed of a header block such that a checksum of the header block, generated according to the checksum seed, is equal to zero; communicating, via a transmitter, a data block and the header block; and generating the checksum seed according to a pre-determined header field that is not expected to change between a transmission of a first data block and a transmission of a second data block.”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant applicant's claim 31 broadens the scope of claim 10 of the (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) by eliminating several imitations as the table above shows. It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of (U.S. PN: 12,259,782) read on the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
"A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel dependent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. patent no. 12,210,413 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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.
Claims 21-40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a checksum seed of the header field is generated such that the checksum of the header field is equal to zero” which does not particularly point out how the generation of a checksum seed is being processed to achieve the cited result. Further, the claim recites “generating a checksum according to a header field that is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks”. It is not clear how the step of generation of the checksum is performed, for example., checksum generated according to a header field is an error detection value embedded in the header computed from the contents of a network packet’s header to detect errors in that header during transmission and it is part of the header itself and is used by the receiving end to verify that the header has not been corrupted. Furthermore, interconnections between the checksum and plurality of data blocks is confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place.
Claim 25, and 35 recite the limitation “wherein a transmitter is configured to transmit a special frame prior to a header block, if a number of bytes in the header block is greater than a threshold” however a special frame of what exactly is being referred to here. Further, the term "special" is a relative term and it is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “special frame” has been interpreted as any type of frame.
Claim 26 and 36 recite the limitation “wherein a transmitter is configured to transmit a special frame prior to a data block, if a number of bytes in the data block is greater than a threshold” however a special frame of what exactly is being referred to here. Further, the term "special" is a relative term and it is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “special frame” has been interpreted as any type of frame.
Claim 27 and 37 recite the limitation wherein the processor is configured to: execute a child partition on the processor, and send outbound traffic from the child partition directly to a transmitter. It is not clear by the limitation “child partition” and what exactly is being referred to here? For examination purposes, “child partition” has been interpreted as any type of frame. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted broadly to any partition of data executable by a processor.
Independent claim 31 includes similar limitations of independent claim 1 andtherefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For example, claim 31 recites:
A method comprising: generating a checksum seed of a header field such that a checksum of the header field is equal to zero; and generating the checksum of the header field, wherein the header field is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks.
The claim recites a method which falls into a statutory category. The claim does not recite any hardware tied to the method.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim simply recites a method to “generating a checksum seed of a header field such that a checksum of the header field is equal to zero; and generating the checksum of the header field, wherein the header field is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks”.
These are mathematical concepts that can potentially be done mentally or via pen an paper. Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements of the claim do not recite any practical application. Accordingly, claim 31 is ineligible. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 21 is directed to a system comprising a processor recite similar limitation as in claim 31. The system and processor are considered to be generic components and does not add meaningful limitations to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f-h). Therefore claim 21 is rejected as well under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Respective dependent claims 22-30 and 32-40 further limit parent claims and do not cure the deficiencies of parent claims and are therefore rejected at least based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 21-24, 28-30, 32-34, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Thakur et al. (U.S. PN: 7,134,070).
As per claim 21 and 31:
Thakur substantially teaches or discloses a system (see figure 2, system embodiment, col. 1, line 45-46)) comprising: a processor (col. 3, lines 22-44 and col. 4, lines 54-60) configured to generate a checksum according to a header field that is associated with each of a plurality of data blocks, wherein a checksum seed of the header field is generated such that the checksum of the header field is equal to zero “Circuitry 40 may generate a temporary version of header 70 of packet 110. This temporary version of header 70 may be identical to the actual header 70 of packet 110, except that in the temporary version of header 70, the checksum 72 may be set equal to zero. If part 304 of segment 302E is comprised in portion 71, after completion of operation 412, circuitry 40 may signal memory 46. This may result in the temporary version of header 70 being concatenated with part 304 of segment 302E, and the resulting concatenation being stored in memory 46. Circuitry 40 also may calculate, using conventional TCP checksum calculation techniques, the checksum of this temporary version of header 70 (see col. 7, lines 7-18).
As per claims 22 and 32:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the processor is configured to use a partial checksum to generate the checksum (see col. 7, lines 51-67 to col. 8, lines 43).
As per claims 23 and 33:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate the checksum according to a baseline header field (see col. 7, lines 7-18).
As per claims 24 and 34:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein a transmitter is configured to transmit each of the plurality of data blocks with a header block comprising the header field (see col. 3, lines 66-67 to col. 4, lines 1-19).
As per claims 25 and 35:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein a transmitter is configured to transmit a special frame prior to a header block, if a number of bytes in the header block is greater than a threshold (see col. 5, lines 45-67).
As per claims 26 and 36:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein a transmitter is configured to transmit a special frame prior to a data block, if a number of bytes in the data block is greater than a threshold (see col. 5, lines 45-67).
As per claims 27 and 37:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the processor is configured to: execute a child partition on the processor, and send outbound traffic from the child partition directly to a transmitter (see col. 4, lines 21-35).
As per claims 28 and 38:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the checksum seed is generated by the processor (see col. 7, lines 7-18).
As per claims 29 and 39:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the checksum seed is one of a plurality of pre-determined numbers (see col. 7, lines 7-18).
As per claims 30 and 40:
Thakur substantially teaches wherein the checksum is generated by adding a partial checksum to a checksum of a non-baseline field (see col. 7, lines 7-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Doser et al. (U.S. PN: 9,014,533) in FIG. 30 depicts a high level diagram of exemplary CEC processing 3000 to provide an application to application communication with CEC vendor specific commands, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. That is, with respect to CEC processing 3000, Look Data Elementary Messages are generated by a generation application 3005 in content creation/authoring. The Look Data Elementary Messages are then assembled to become a look data packet by a packet assembly block 3010. A cyclic redundancy code (CRC) is calculated from this packet by a CRC block 3015, in an HDMI defined way. The CRC here is implemented as a checksum, which is defined to be the byte-wide sum of all packet data, including header, plus the checksum data, to be equal zero (see col. 17, lines 1-14).
Ternullo et al. (U.S. PN:6,954,893) describe broadcast information controller 106b may parse an exemplary message into bytes 1A-4A, 1B-4B, 1C-4C for transmission to emitter 108. Then, broadcast information controller 106b encapsulates the resulting windows 401a, 401b, 401c with integrity element 402, 404, 406, respectively. Integrity element 402, 404, 406 may contain a header 403 having a checksum value 407, a window size 408, an operator 410, and a seed 412. Checksum value 407 is computed over the bytes making up a respective window 401a, 401b, 401c using known techniques such as exclusive ORing (XORing) each byte with its neighbor. As such, checksum value 407 uniquely identifies the contents of the window 401a, 401b, 401c over which it was computed. Window size 408 identifies the number of bytes that checksum value 407 was computed over. Operator 410 identifies the mathematical operator used to compute checksum value 407, and seed 412 identifies the seed value used for computing the first value used when computing checksum value 407. Seed 412 may be set to zero if no seed value is used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights