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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent contains all the elements and/or equivalent elements of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220255839 to Dhanabalan.
Regarding claim 1, Dhanabalan teaches a device, comprising:
a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
receiving network information comprising network topology information enabling determining a distance among a group of endpoint devices (¶ 2, 23-28, 97, 111, receiving topology information for determining distances among endpoints), ;
receiving user equipment information comprising a location of a user equipment (¶ 23-28, 97, 111, location of UEs);
measuring a latency between the user equipment and a first endpoint device of the group of endpoint devices resulting in a measured latency (¶ 3, 23-25, measurement of latency between devices);
adjusting the network topology information based on the measured latency and the distance among the group of endpoint devices resulting in an adjusted network topology (¶ 29, adjusting ranking of connections based on measured latency); and
selecting a second endpoint device from the group of endpoint devices based on the adjusted network topology (¶ 28, 97, 111, selection of endpoint devices to reduce latency).
Regarding claim 11,
Dhanabalan teaches:
wherein the device comprises a service provider device (¶ 3-4, 28, 97, 111, service provision devices).
Regarding claim 12, Dhanabalan teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
receiving network information comprising network topology information enabling determining a distance among a group of endpoint devices (¶ 2, 23-28, 97, 111, receiving topology information for determining distances among endpoints);
receiving user equipment information comprising a location of a user equipment; measuring a latency between the user equipment and a first endpoint device of the group of endpoint devices resulting in a measured latency (¶ 3, 23-25, receiving information; measurement of latency between devices);
adjusting the network topology information based on the measured latency and the distance among the group of endpoint devices resulting in and adjusted network topology (¶ 29, adjusting ranking of connections based on measured latency);
determining whether each of the group of endpoint devices includes an instance of a service resulting in a first determination (¶ 23-24, determining network service between devices; ¶ 23-28, 97, 111, latency determination); and
selecting a second endpoint device from the group of endpoint devices based on the adjusted network topology, and based on the first determination (¶ 28, 97, 111, selection of endpoint devices to reduce latency).
Regarding claim 20, Dhanabalan teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processing system including a processor, network information comprising network topology information enabling determining a distance among a group of endpoint devices (¶ 2, 23-28, 97, 111, receiving topology information for determining distances among endpoints);
receiving, by the processing system, user equipment information comprising a location of a user equipment; measuring, by the processing system, a latency between the user equipment and a first endpoint device of the group of endpoint devices resulting in a measured latency (¶ 3, 23-25, receiving information; measurement of latency between devices);
adjusting, by the processing system, the network topology information based on the measured latency and the distance among the group of endpoint devices resulting in an adjusted network topology (¶ 29, adjusting ranking of connections based on measured latency);
determining, by the processing system, whether each of the group of endpoint devices includes instance of a service resulting in a first determination (¶ 23-24, determining network service between devices; ¶ 23-28, 97, 111, latency determination);
determining, by the processing system, a latency between the user equipment and each of the group of endpoint devices resulting in a group of latencies (¶ 23-29); and
selecting, by the processing system, a second endpoint device from the group of endpoint devices based on the group of latencies between the user equipment and each of the group of endpoint devices, based on the adjusted network topology, and based on the first determination (¶ 28, 97, 111, selection of endpoint devices to reduce latency).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2-10, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhanabalan in view of US 20210112296 to Mehta.
Regarding claim 2, 13,
Dhanabalan fails to teach but Mehta teaches:
determining that the measured latency between the user equipment and the first endpoint device does not correspond to a topological distance between the user equipment and the first endpoint device resulting in a determination (¶ 18, latency due to geographic distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Mehta. The motivation to do so is that the teachings of Mehta would have been advantageous in terms of facilitating latency reduction (Mehta, ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 3, 14,
Dhanabalan fails to teach but Mehta teaches:
based on the determination, converting the measured latency to a constructive topological distance associated with the user equipment and the first endpoint device (¶ 18, converting latency into constructive topological distance for data transmission management). Motivation to include Mehta is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 4, 15,
Dhanabalan teaches:
adjusting the network topology information based on the measured latency resulting in adjusted network topology information (¶ 29, adjusting ranking of connections based on measured latency);
Regarding claim 5, 16,
Mehta teaches:
wherein the adjusting of the network topology information comprises replacing the topological distance between with the user equipment and the first endpoint device with the constructive topological distance associated with the user equipment and the first endpoint device (¶ 18). Motivation to include Mehta is the same as presented above.
Regarding claim 6, 17,
Dhanabalan teaches:
ranking the endpoint devices according to a ranking rule related to location of the user equipment and topological distance between the endpoint devices based on the adjusted network topology information (¶ 28, 97, 111).
Regarding claim 7, 18,
Dhanabalan teaches:
enabling access to ranks of the ranking to enable selection of a second endpoint device of the endpoint devices based on the ranks (¶ 28, 97, 111, accessing rankings; endpoint device selection).
Regarding claim 8, 19,
Dhanabalan teaches:
wherein the selecting of the second endpoint device from the group of endpoint devices comprises selecting the second endpoint device based on the ranks (¶ 28, 97, 111, selection of endpoint devices to reduce latency; see also fig. 4, fig. 1B; fig. 2A, ¶ 81,).
Regarding claim 9,
Dhanabalan teaches:
wherein the selecting of the second endpoint device from the group of endpoint devices comprises selecting the second endpoint device on whether each of the group of endpoint devices includes an instance of a service (¶ 23-29, 97, 111, selection of device where devices include instance of network service).
Regarding claim 10,
Dhanabalan teaches:
wherein the selecting of the second endpoint device reduces latency in performing the service (¶ 23, 28, 97, 111).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO 02/17110 A1 to Ahuja.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. 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.
/RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights