DETAILED ACTION
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 1 – 22 are pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeon et al (US20250173289) hereinafter Jeon.
As to claim 1, Jeon discloses a test apparatus, comprising: a multi-user module including: a processing module (Fig. 2, with processing module, 100); a peripheral component interconnect express PCIE bridge (Fig. 3, where switch 2200 comprises said bridge, para. 0055); and a plurality of terminal interfaces, (Fig. 3, and interfaces such as PCIe EP 3) wherein: the PCIE bridge provides a communication path between the processing module and the plurality of terminal interfaces and is connected to the processing module, the PCIE bridge comprising a plurality of branch nodes each connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of terminal interfaces in a one-to-one correspondence (Fig. 3 where terminal interfaces are coupled to the processing module via the switch, paras. 0070, 0071).
As to claim 7, Jeon discloses the apparatus, wherein the apparatus further comprises: a traffic test module connected to the multi-user module over the wired network (Fig. 3 with module 111, para. 0058).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Cao et al (EP3993321) hereinafter Cao
.
As to claim 5, Jeon does not disclose the apparatus, further comprising: a clock synchronization module connectable to the multi-user module over a wired network.
Cao teaches a clock synchronization module connectable to the multi-user module over a wired network (Page 2, and para, 0009). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use the capability of Cao in the system of Jeon to discover and repair network faults before system deployment, page 2, and para. 0002).
As to claim 6, Cao discloses the apparatus, wherein the clock synchronization module is connectable to a to-be-tested terminal over the wired network (page 8, and para. 0059). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use the capability of Cao in the system of Jeon to discover and repair network faults before system deployment, page 2, and para. 0002).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Jeong (US12584985).
As to claim 8, Jeon does not disclose the apparatus, wherein: the traffic test module comprises a wired interface and a wireless interface, wherein the wired interface is configured to transmit a management packet over the wired network, and the wireless interface is configured to transmit a data packet over a wireless fidelity network.
However, Jeong teaches in Fig. 2 module comprises a wired interface and a wireless interface, wherein the wired interface (Fig. 2, and COL. 10, lines 44 – 60) is configured to transmit a management packet over the wired network, and the wireless interface (Fig. 2, lines 44 – 60) is configured to transmit a data packet over a wireless fidelity network (COL. 10, lines 22 – 40). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use the system of Jeong in the testing system of Jeon to ensure that the delivery of magnetic resonant image in a timely fashion is reliable, (COL. 1, lines 38 – 50).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al (EP3993321) hereinafter Cao.
As to claim 16, Cao discloses A performance measurement method (Fig. 2 with management device), comprising: sending, by a client, a management packet to a server over a wired network (Fig. 1, and page 6, and para. 0041); establishing a TCP connection between the client and the server based on the management packet (Fig. 2, and step 202, and page 7, para. 0045); sending, by the client, a data packet to the server through an access point (AP) (Fig. 2, and step 204, page 7, and paras. 0050 – 000052); and measuring, by the server, traffic of the data packet by using a traffic measurement module, wherein the server comprises the traffic measurement module (Fig. 2, and step 206, where an abnormal flow is measured, page 8, paras. 0055 – 000057).
As to claim 17, Cao discloses the method, wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the server, a source IP address and a source port number of the client (page 7, and para. 0054).
As to claim 18, Cao discloses the method, wherein the client and the server each comprise a clock synchronization module, and the method further comprises: synchronizing, by the clock synchronization module, a clock of the server with a clock of the client over the wired network (Fig. 2, and step 204, and page 8, para. 0059).
As to claim 19, Cao discloses the method, further comprising: measuring, by the server, a one-way delay of the data packet (Fig. 2, and step 205 between source and destination, page 9, and para. 0062).
As to claim 20, Cao discloses a test device, comprising: a processor (Figs. 1, and 13, page 6, para. 0039) where; and a transceiver, (Network device 102 of Fig. 1 implicitly comprise said) wherein: the transceiver is configured to receive computer code or instructions and to transmit the computer code or the instructions to the processor (Fig. 2, and step 201) ; and the processor is configured to run the computer code or the instructions to implement a performance measurement method that causes the test device to perform operations (Fig. 2, and step 204, page 7, and paras. 0052, 0053)
including: sending, by a client, a management packet to a server over a wired network (Fig. 1, and page 6, and para. 0041); establishing a TCP connection between the client and the server based on the management packet (Fig. 2, and step 202, and page 7, para. 0045); sending, by the client, a data packet to the server through an access point (AP) (Fig. 2, and step 204, page 7, and paras. 0050 – 000052).
As to claim 21, Cao discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when run on a computer or a processor (Fig. 1, and page 6, and para. 0039), enables the computer or the processor to perform operations including: establishing a TCP connection between the client and the server based on the management packet (Fig. 2, and step 202, and page 7, para. 0045); sending, by the client, a data packet to the server through an access point (AP) (Fig. 2, and step 204, page 7, and paras. 0050 – 000052).
As to claim 22, Cao discloses a computer program product comprising a computer program that, when executed, the on a computer device, (Fig. 1, and page6, and para. 0039)causes the computer device to perform operations including: sending, by a client, a management packet to a server over a wired network (Fig. 1, and page 6, and para. 0041); establishing a TCP connection between the client and the server based on the management packet (Fig. 2, and step 202, and page 7, para. 0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 4, 9 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US12114188, US20180139086, and US20170353991, among other teach the performance testing of networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3625. The examiner can normally be reached 7 - 3:30 pm.
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, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached at 571 2724176. 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.
/C.A.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights