DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of TR 2023/017831 and PCT/TR2023/051868 filed 12/20/2023 and 12/29/2023, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: They include drawing reference numbers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/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. “Traffic that requires time precision,” “DRL-based classification,” “MDP-based approach,” and “DRL techniques” have ambiguous boundaries and are indefinite.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the following claim(s) for the limitation(s) enumerated below:
Claim(s) 1-2 recites the limitation "the objects”, “the real-time data,” “the real/digital world,” “the physical smart switches management,” “the data transmission,” “the data frames,” “the optimization,” “the reward/loss function,” “the time-sensitive priority traffic data,” “the traffic status.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term "main carrier,” “optimizes switch management,” “three times better than the TAS,” “the most appropriate paths" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim limitation “physical network module, digital twin network module, smart switch twin module, smart switch service layer module, DRL-based classification module, a module for data frames classified based on their priority, smart gate control mechanism module, data transmission selection module, and time synchronization module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides no algorithm for performing the functionality. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dechene (US Pub. 2022/0247643) in view of Frohlich (US Pub. 2025/0141807).
With respect to Claim 2, Dechene teaches an operation method of the low-latency reinforcement learning-supported and digital twin-enabled data traffic management and optimization system for 6G smart city infrastructures, wherein it comprises the steps of i. creating a digital twin of the physical network components (1001) and performing the time synchronization (1004), (Time synchronization will be taught later. para. 53; physical computer network nodes, including switches. para. 34; digital twin network simulation)
ii. collecting the real-time data via the digital twin network module (2) (1002) and performing the time synchronization (1004), (para. 59; Monitoring service observes traffic and performance data. Para. 65; live environment data)
iii. monitoring the status of the physical switches with the smart switch twin module (3) (1003) (para. 59; Monitoring service observes traffic and performance data. Para. 65; live environment data. Paras. 53-54, 77-78; network includes switches and digital twins include twins of switches)
iv. implementing a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based classification module (6) for the smart traffic management (1005) and performing the time synchronization (1004), (para. 58; Deep-Q Meta-Reinforcement Learning. Paras. 115-117, 121-123; system classifies applications and their traffic. Para. 138; system performs routing of flows based on classification.)
v. classifying the data frames based on their priority (1006), (para. 3; routing based on classification and prioritization traffic type. Para. 164; User can tune priority data type for modelling, such as prioritizing voice or video. Paras. 115-117, 121-123; system classifies applications and their traffic. Para. 138; system performs routing of flows based on classification.)
vi. using the smart gate control mechanism module (8) (1007) and performing the time synchronization (1004), (para. 53, 58-59; control system used to define routing decisions for switches)
vii. determining the transmission path of the data traffic (1008), (Para. 138; system performs routing of flows based on classification.)
viii. opening or closing the gates based on the traffic priority status (1009). (para. 53, 58-59; control system used to define routing decisions for switches)
But Dechene does not explicitly teach time synchronization.
Frohlich, however, does teach and performing the time synchronization (1004), (paras. 27-28; time synchronization)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Dechene with the time synchronization in order to provide communication for applications that require ultra-low latency. (Frohlich, para. 27)
Remarks
Examiner makes no rejection to Claim 1 only because the claims include significant indefinitenesses that make the scope unidentifiable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights