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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-7 are pending.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a setting change time acquire, an execution cycle determiner, a quality collector, an analysis controller in claims 1-7 are generic place holder modified by functional language (configure to….) without sufficient structure. Therefore , it invokes 112 (f). The specification fails to clearly link of associate the discloses structure to the claimed function, rendering the claim indefinite.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Yada et al. (US 7292540 B2) hereinafter Yada in view of Schneider et al.
( US 20190319880 A1) hereinafter Schneider.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Yada discloses a network controller ( see network monitoring and controlling apparatus 30, see [AB] and Fig. 4) comprising:
an execution cycle determiner configured to determine an execution cycle at which collection of quality information and control of the one or more node devices are performed on a basis of the acquired setting change time information (col 8 lines 25-28, each time a fixed time passes, the timer 48 notifies the passage of the fixed time to the quality information periodic collection unit 50. The quality information periodic collection unit 50 has the following functions. (1) The quality information periodic collection unit 50 stores information…(2) When the passage of the fixed time is notified from the timer 48, the quality information periodic collection unit 50 retrieves information….Col.9 lines 3-13, information on whether there is deterioration in quality at a present time, the present time-T.times.1 (T: a quality information collecting period for the path),…, the present time-T.times.n. see also Figs 4 and 6);
a quality collector configured to collect quality incollection andthe one or more node devices at the execution cycle determined by the execution cycle determiner (col. 8 lines 35-41, when the passage of the fixed time is notified from the timer 48, the quality information periodic collection unit 50 retrieves information on an entrance point and an exit point of a path for next collection, and requests the transmission apparatus communication unit 46 to instruct corresponding transmission apparatus 32#i to transmit quality information of the entrance point and the exit point. Col 5 lines 17-2, and Fig.4, the quality information is generally collected automatically at fixed periods); and
an analysis controller configured to control settings of each of the one or more node devices on a basis of the quality information of each of the one or more node devices collected by the quality collector at the execution cycle determined by the execution cycle determiner (col 18 lines 16-14, and Fig. 15 when the active path is deteriorated in quality as compared with the reserve path, the quality comparison/changeover unit 66 instructs the transmission apparatus 32#G at the exit point of the path to change over to the reserve path via the transmission apparatus communication unit 46. When instructed to change over to the reserve path, the transmission apparatus 32#G selects frame data of an input channel corresponding to the reserve path and transmits the frame data to the transmission line 34. Col 9 lines 10-13 and Fig. 6, the decision uses quality from each period (present time- Tx n) information on whether there is deterioration in quality at a present time, the present time-T.times.1 (T: a quality information collecting period for the path),…, the present time-T.times.n).
Yada may not explicitly disclose a setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices.
However, Schneider discloses a setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices (para.
[0031] the data plane elements transmit messages containing their FTE installation time information to the at least one control plane element on a regular basis. The time interval can be configured depending on the respective requirements. [0046] the switches 6 either track or measure their current individual FTE installation times, or they estimate an upper bound for their FTE installation times. Here, the FTE installation time is defined by the elapsed time between receiving a FTE modification request from the network controller 3 at the respective switch 6 until the time when the corresponding changes to the switch's 6 flow table(s) have been performed. [0053] the network controller 3 can explicitly request (e.g. poll) the FTE installation time information from the switch 6. Alternatively, the switch 6 may be configured to report to the network controller 3 when its FTE installation time measurement or estimate changes or when the change exceeds a predefined tolerance range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada and include a setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices using the teaching of Schneider. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce or eliminate potential routing errors due to unavoidable network delays.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated. Yada may not explicitly disclose
wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices. However, Schneider discloses wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices (para. [0031] the data plane elements transmit messages containing their FTE installation time information to the at least one control plane element on a regular basis. The time interval can be configured depending on the respective requirements. [0046] the switches 6 either track or measure their current individual FTE installation times, or they estimate an upper bound for their FTE installation times. Here, the FTE installation time is defined by the elapsed time between receiving a FTE modification request from the network controller 3 at the respective switch 6 until the time when the corresponding changes to the switch's 6 flow table(s) have been performed. [0053] the network controller 3 can explicitly request (e.g. poll) the FTE installation time information from the switch 6. Alternatively, the switch 6 may be configured to report to the network controller 3 when its FTE installation time measurement or estimate changes or when the change exceeds a predefined tolerance range)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada and include , wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information by a notification from a host device, a request to the one or more node devices, or a voluntary report from the one or more node devices using the teaching of Schneider. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce or eliminate potential routing errors due to unavoidable network delays.
.
9. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et al.
(US 7292540 B2) hereinafter Yada in view of in view of Schneider et al.( US 20190319880 A1) hereinafter Schneider and further in view of Johansson et al. (US 20120120813 A1) hereinafter Johansson.
Regarding claim 3, claim is incorporated Yada in view of Schneider may not explicitly disclose wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information on a basis of a result of measurement between the network controller and the one or more node devices. However, Johansson discloses wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information on a basis of a result of measurement between the network controller and the one or more node devices (para. [0009]The controller is still further adapted to measure the time elapsed between sending the reconfiguration request and receiving the reconfiguration response and to determine a value for round-trip delay for transmission of data to and from said second node using this measured time. [0029] Once the first node 10 detects the reconfigured data units, it can determine the time elapsed between sending the request and detecting the modified data units. This value can then be used to determine or estimate the transmission delay),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada in view of Schneider and include wherein the setting change time acquirer acquires the setting change time information on a basis of a result of measurement between the network controller and the one or more node devices using the teaching of Johansson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to efficiently determine the value for round-trip delay based on time elapsed between the process of sending reconfiguration request and the process of detecting reconfiguration response.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et
al. (US 7292540 B2) hereinafter Yada in view of in view of Schneider et al.
( US 20190319880 A1) hereinafter Schneider and further in view of Maekawa
(US 20220210247 A1) hereinafter Maekawa
Regarding claim 4, claim is 1 incorporated. Yada in view of Schneider may not explicitly disclose wherein the setting change time acquirer further acquires information regarding types of the one or more node devices, and acquires the setting change time information by referring to a table in which the setting change time information is associated with each type of node device or inquiring a host device about setting change time corresponding to the types of the node devices on a basis of the acquired information regarding the types of the one or more node devices. However, Maekawa discloses wherein the setting change time acquirer further acquires information regarding types of the one or more node devices, and acquires the setting change time information by referring to a table in which the setting change time information is associated with each type of node device or inquiring a host device about setting change time corresponding to the types of the node devices on a basis of the acquired information regarding the types of the one or more node devices (para. [0163] referring to FIG. 12, parameter table 170 includes parameter values including a first parameter 172, a second parameter 174, and a third parameter group 176 for each type of a controller (typically, standard control unit 100). [0168] FIG. 12, as the type of the controller of interest is determined, five corresponding parameter values are read from parameter table 170. The minimum value of the settable EPI is calculated…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada in view of Schneider and include wherein the setting change time acquirer further acquires information regarding types of the one or more node devices, and acquires the setting change time information by referring to a table in which the setting change time information is associated with each type of node device or inquiring a host device about setting change time corresponding to the types of the node devices on a basis of the acquired information regarding the types of the one or more node devices using the teaching of Maekawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to efficiently determine the range that can set the period to exchange data between the devices.
. 11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et
al. (US 7292540 B2) hereinafter Yada in view of in view of Schneider et al.
( US 20190319880 A1) hereinafter Schneider in view of Maekawa
(US 20220210247 A1) hereinafter Maekawa and further in view of Ulmer et
al. (US 20180357194 A1) hereinafter Ulmer.
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 is incorporated Yada, Schneider and Maekawa may not explicitly disclose a table creator configured to create the table by acquiring setting change time information for each type of node device and registering the setting change time information in association with each type of node device by use of the acquired setting change time information. However, Ulmer discloses a table creator configured to create the table by acquiring setting change time information for each type of node device and registering the setting change time information in association with each type of node device by use of the acquired setting change time information (para. 0016] a network device on a managed network, wherein the network device is identified as a one of a list of one or more network device types supported by the managed network and included in one or more configuration files, and wherein the one or more configuration files further include a list of one or more respective SNMP variables to be monitored for each of the network device types. The apparatus is further caused to extract the respective listing of SNMP variables to be monitored from the one or more configuration files for the identified network device type. The apparatus is then caused to generate a request to monitor the extracted SNMP variables to be monitored for the network device. Additionally, the configuration file may further include a listing of one or more respective SNMP variables to be configured for each of the network device types listed in the configuration file, and the apparatus is further caused to extract the respective listing of SNMP variables to be configured from the one or more configuration files for the identified network device type. The apparatus is then caused to generate a request to configure the extracted SNMP variables to be configured for the network device. [0075] monitoring, which involves periodic polling, configuration of the COTS device is performed typically at start up when an IP address is assigned or when the operator performs configuration updates from the NOC--that is, when the value(s) for the SNMP configuration parameter(s) change. [0064] In step S709, Network Manager 620 generates a configuration file, which includes a list of the transport devices selected by the operator for monitoring, along with all of the SNMP variables selected by the operator for monitoring for each listed transport device. In other words, the configuration file includes both (a) a list of one or more transport devices, and (b) for each transport device, a list of one or more SNMP variables).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada, Schneider and Maekawa and include a table creator configured to create the table by acquiring setting change time information for each type of node device and registering the setting change time information in association with each type of node device by use of the acquired setting change time information using the teaching of Ulmer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately monitor and control network performance.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada et
al. (US 7292540 B2) hereinafter Yada in view of in view of Schneider et al.
( US 20190319880 A1) hereinafter Schneider and further in view of Ulmer et
al. (US 20180357194 A1) hereinafter Ulmer.
Regarding claim 6, claim is incorporated Yada in view of Schneider may not explicitly disclose wherein the execution cycle determiner determines, as the execution cycle, a maximum time among a maximum time in the setting change time information acquired by the setting change time acquirer, an execution time required by the quality collector for processing, and an execution time required by the analysis controller for processing. However, Ulmer disclose wherein the execution cycle determiner determines, as the execution cycle, a maximum time among a maximum time in the setting change time information acquired by the setting change time acquirer, an execution time required by the quality collector for processing, and an execution time required by the analysis controller for processing (para. [0057]The selection of the bus turnaround period 710 reflects the maximum bus turn-around wait period required (e.g. the period required by the slowest slave device 618 in FIG. 6. [0037] period is typically defined as a minimum duration of time sufficient to allow devices with the slowest bus turnaround characteristic to transition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yada in view of Schneider and include wherein the execution cycle determiner determines, as the execution cycle, a maximum time among a maximum time in the setting change time information acquired by the setting change time acquirer, an execution time required by the quality collector for processing, and an execution time required by the analysis controller for processing using the teaching of Ulmer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to accurately monitor and control network performance.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Mendaye whose telephone number is (571)272-2603. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7:00 am-5:00pm EST. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on (571) 272-4001. 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.
09/30/2026
/KIDEST MENDAYE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
