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 .
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-23, 30-32, 39 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
While claim 1, line 18, recites “using at least one Master Node”, it is unclear if this is meant to reference Master Nodes previously cited within the claim or different Master Nodes. As a node is assigned to be a “First Master Node” by an observer agent in line 10, and an additional node is assigned to be “the Master Node” by the First Master Node within lines 14-15. It is unclear if the claim is meant to reference the plural Master Nodes already present or a different Master Node, as the language of “at least one Master Node” does not include proper antecedence to the previously cited Master Nodes.
While claim 1, lines 20-23, recite “wherein at least two of the observer agents assign the role of Master Node to more than one node of the plurality of nodes to form a plurality of Master Nodes including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node”, it is unclear what action is being performed to “form a plurality of Master Nodes” as a plurality of Master Nodes already exists within the claim, including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node (see lines 10 and 14-15 above regarding the First Master Node and “the node” which was assigned the role of the Master Node).
Thus, as plural “Master Nodes” have already been established within the claim, it is unclear how one would “form a plurality of Master Nodes” including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node, and exactly what action needs to be performed to achieve the limitation of “forming a plurality”, as recited within line 21.
While claim 20, recites “the Master Node”, it is unclear which Master node is being referenced.
While claim 21, line 19, recites “using at least one Master Node”, it is unclear if this is meant to reference Master Nodes previously cited within the claim or different Master Nodes. As a node is assigned to be a “First Master Node” by an observer agent in line 11, and an additional node is assigned to be “the Master Node” by the First Master Node within lines 15-16. It is unclear if the claim is meant to reference the plural Master Nodes already present or a different Master Node, as the language of “at least one Master Node” does not include proper antecedence to the previously cited Master Nodes.
While claim 21, lines 21-24, recite “wherein at least two of the observer agents assign the role of Master Node to more than one node of the plurality of nodes to form a plurality of Master Nodes including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node”, it is unclear what action is being performed to “form a plurality of Master Nodes” as a plurality of Master Nodes already exists within the claim, including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node (see lines 11 and 15-16 above regarding the First Master Node and “the node” which was assigned the role of the Master Node).
Thus, as plural “Master Nodes” have already been established within the claim, it is unclear how one would “form a plurality of Master Nodes” including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node, and exactly what action needs to be performed to achieve the limitation of “forming a plurality”, as recited within line 22.
While claim 39, line 20, recites “using at least one Master Node”, it is unclear if this is meant to reference Master Nodes previously cited within the claim or different Master Nodes. As a node is assigned to be a “First Master Node” by an observer agent in line 12, and an additional node is assigned to be “the Master Node” by the First Master Node within lines 16-17. It is unclear if the claim is meant to reference the plural Master Nodes already present or a different Master Node, as the language of “at least one Master Node” does not include proper antecedence to the previously cited Master Nodes.
While claim 39, lines 22-25, recite “wherein at least two of the observer agents assign the role of Master Node to more than one node of the plurality of nodes to form a plurality of Master Nodes including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node”, it is unclear what action is being performed to “form a plurality of Master Nodes” as a plurality of Master Nodes already exists within the claim, including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node (see lines 12 and 16-17 above regarding the First Master Node and “the node” which was assigned the role of the Master Node).
Thus, as plural “Master Nodes” have already been established within the claim, it is unclear how one would “form a plurality of Master Nodes” including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node, and exactly what action needs to be performed to achieve the limitation of “forming a plurality”, as recited within line 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of applicant’s response, filed 03/31/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 10-23, 30-32, 39 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 10-23, 30-32, 39 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/26, regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While applicant’s amendments have corrected some issues, they have raised numerous new inconsistencies within the claim language.
As indicated above, the language of “at least one Master Node” does not properly reference the two previously cited Master Nodes within the claim, the “First Master Node” and “the node when the node is assigned the role of Master Node”.
Additionally, the language of “wherein at least two of the observer agents assign the role of Master Node to more than one node of the plurality of nodes to form a plurality of Master Nodes including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to exactly what step is being performed.
As the “First Master Node” and “the node when the node is assigned the role of Master Node” already exist, it is unclear how a “plurality of Master Nodes” would later be formed and what action is required to meet this limitation and form the plurality of already existing Master Nodes.
It instead appears that the plurality of Master Nodes is formed when “the node is assigned the role of the Master Node”, as this point results in two Master Nodes existing.
The current phrasing of the language of “wherein at least two of the observer agents assign the role of Master Node to more than one node of the plurality of nodes to form a plurality of Master Nodes including the first Master Node and the node when the node is assigned the role of the Master Node”
appears to be restating the earlier steps of the claim which originally assigned the role of Master Node to those two nodes, and possibly adding more Master Nodes to the plural Master Nodes which already exist.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-23, 30-32, 39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James R Sheleheda whose telephone number is (571)272-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm CST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at (571) 272-3982. 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.
/James R Sheleheda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424