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
This communication is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 6/23/2025 in which claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are amended; and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Objection to the Title
TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the
invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive. The title of the disclosure is objected to because the current title, “ DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD AND RELATED APPARATUS”, is more indicative of a general category/subject to which claims are directed. While the current title describes the invention it does so in a very general sense and is not clearly indicative of the claimed invention. It lacks the necessary detail to differentiate Applicant's communication apparatus. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by Examiner's Amendment pursuant to MPEP 606.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, line 1 recites “wherein he”, should recite “wherein the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 9-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeh et al. (US 20210271739 A1) hereinafter “Zeh”.
As to claim 1, Zeh discloses a method (Abstract), comprising:
generating, by a first communication apparatus, a first packet that comprises a payload, a transport layer header, and a data link layer header, and the first packet does not comprise a network layer header (Zeh [2-4, 19, 25], discloses generating one or more frames based on the payload, including a first header with a respective transport layer, and a data link layer which does not comprise a network layer header); and
sending, by the first communication apparatus, the first packet to a second communication apparatus over a communication connection, wherein the communication connection is a data forwarding connection without using a network layer (Zeh [3-4, 25-27, 42-44], discloses a transmitter and a receiver device on a bus-based communication system, wherein forwarding/transporting first frames to a second device via the data link layer/without using a network layer).
As to claim 2, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the transport layer header comprises a plurality of the following fields: a version number, a header length, a source port, a destination port, a sequence number, an acknowledgment sequence number, and a total packet length (Zeh [28-32, 37-41, 49], discloses the fields associated with transport layer, including fields inherently required for performing designated operation).
As to claim 3, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the data link layer header comprises a plurality of the following fields: an upper layer protocol type, a source media access control (MAC) address, and a destination MAC address (Zeh [16-19], discloses a data link layer which inherently comprises source and destination MAC addresses for performing designated operations, including one or more upper or lower layers); and
the upper layer protocol type indicates a protocol type corresponding to the transport layer header (Zeh [16-19], discloses wherein the upper layers is associated with the transport layer and data link layer).
As to claim 4, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a header in the first packet does not comprise the following fields: a source Internet protocol (IP) address, a destination IP address, a checksum, and a time to live (TTL) (Zeh [17-19, 21-25], data/payload is transported via data link layer wherein the header does not require IP source/destination addresses for transporting the packets).
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(s) 5, 7-8, 13, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeh et al. (US 20210271739 A1) hereinafter “Zeh” in view of Chen et al. (US 20230269181 A1) hereinafter “Chen”.
As to claim 5, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, Zeh is silent on wherein the communication connection is identified by using a media access control (MAC) address and a port number of the first communication apparatus and a MAC address and a port number of the second communication apparatus.
However, Chen discloses a system for handling packet tunnel/routing network, wherein the packet header comprises a source and destination MAC address for identifying packets transmitted via a network layer (Chen [22-25]).
Zeh and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of transporting data packets. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zeh and Chen before him or her, to modify the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh to include the method of handling packet tunnel system of Chen with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing MAC addresses for source/first and destination/second port numbers for the network node/device. This method of improving the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeh with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to claim 7, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, Zeh is silent on wherein a network type of an interface that is of the first communication apparatus and that is used to establish the communication connection to the second communication apparatus is a peer-to-peer connection.
However, Chen discloses a system for handling packet tunnel/routing network, wherein the communication connection comprise a direct device to device communication (Chen [22-25]).
Zeh and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of transporting data packets. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zeh and Chen before him or her, to modify the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh to include the method of handling packet tunnel system of Chen with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing MAC addresses for source/first and destination/second port numbers for the network node/device. This method of improving the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeh with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
As to claim 8, Zeh discloses the method according to claim 1, Zeh is silent on wherein an internet protocol (IP) address of the first communication apparatus and an IP address of the second communication apparatus are in a same broadcast domain.
However, Chen discloses a system for handling packet tunnel/routing network, wherein the packet header comprises a source and destination MAC (IP) address for identifying packets transmitted via a network layer (Chen [22-25]).
Zeh and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely, systems and methods of transporting data packets. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zeh and Chen before him or her, to modify the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh to include the method of handling packet tunnel system of Chen with reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that is capable of utilizing MAC addresses for source/first and destination/second port numbers for the network node/device. This method of improving the network traffic flow communication system of Zeh was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Chen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zeh with Chen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claims 9-13, 15-19 are corresponding apparatus and method claims that recite similar limitations as of claims 1-5, and 7-8 and do not contain any additional features with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, and 20 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Correspondence Information
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Razu Miah whose telephone number is (571)270-5433. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 23949. 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.
/RAZU A MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights