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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks, page 7, Claim 9 – 35 U.S.C. 112(b), filed 04/03/2026, with respect to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 9 under 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, pages 7-11, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to claims 1-16 has been considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-16 under 103 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments in claim 1. However, upon further review, the amendment introduces new matter and thus the claims 1-16 are rejected under new matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, pages 11-13, filed 04/03/2026, with respect to claims 17-20 has been considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-16 under 103 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments in claim 17. However, upon further review, the amendment introduces new matter and thus the claims 17-20 are rejected under new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16, and 18-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Most of the claims have an issue wherein there should be comma instead of a semicolon. Examiner will attempt to list as many as possible but it’s possible to miss one thus examiner ask the attorney in amending the claims to have an appropriate punctuation.
Regarding Claim 2, line 1 recites “The method of claim 1;” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 3, line 1 recites “The method of claim 1;” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 4, line 1 recites “The method of claim 3;” should change to “The method of claim 3[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 5, line 1 recites “The method of claim 1;” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 6, line 1 recites “The method of claim 1;” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 7, line 1 recites “The method of claim 6;” should change to “The method of claim 6[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 8, line 1 recites “The method of claim 1;” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 9, line 1 recites “The method of claim 8” should change to “The method of claim 8,” (This claim did not have a semicolon but needs a comma).
Regarding Claim 10, lines 1-2 recites “The method of claim 6; further comprising connecting the first security device directly; via the mesh-based communication between the plurality of user devices; to the first user device.” should change to “The method of claim 6[[;]], further comprising connecting the first security device directly[[;]], via the mesh-based communication between the plurality of user devices[[;]], to the first user device.”
Regarding claim 11, lines 1-2 recites “The method of claim 1; further comprising managing connectivity between connected user devices; between one or more security devices; and…” should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]], further comprising managing connectivity between connected user devices[[;]], between one or more security devices[[;]], and…”
Regarding Claim 12, line 1 recites “The method of claim 11;” should change to “The method of claim 11[[;]],”
Regarding Claim 13, lines 1-3 recites “The method of claim 1; further comprising storing configuration information for the plurality of user devices; one or more security devices and one or more master devices in a configuration database.” Should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]], further comprising storing configuration information for the plurality of user devices[[;]], one or more security devices, and one or more master devices in a configuration database.
Regarding Claim 14, lines 1-3 recites “The method of claim 1; further comprising storing information related to the plurality of user devices; the social matrix; device configurations and relationships between one or more master devices and each of the plurality of user devices in a user database.” Should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]], further comprising storing information related to the plurality of user devices; the social matrix[[;]], device configurations and relationships between one or more master devices, and each of the plurality of user devices in a user database.”
Regarding Claim 15, lines 1-3 recites “The method of claim 1; wherein the mesh-based communication system is a mesh- based emergency response system; wherein one or more security devices are provided with the information provided by the first user device.” Should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]], wherein the mesh-based communication system is a mesh- based emergency response system[[;]], wherein one or more security devices are provided with the information provided by the first user device.”
Regarding Claim 16, lines 1-4 recites “The method of claim 1; wherein the connected user device is chosen by the first user device based on at least one of a length of duration that the connected user device is in direct contact with the primary network; on a permission set on the connected user device; and on a proximity of the connected user device.” Should change to “The method of claim 1[[;]], wherein the connected user device is chosen by the first user device based on at least one of a length of duration that the connected user device is in direct contact with the primary network[[;]], on a permission set on the connected user device[[;]], and on a proximity of the connected user device.”
Regarding Claim 18, line 1 recites “The mesh-based communication system of claim 17;” should change to “The mesh-based communication system of claim 17 [[;]],”
Regarding Claim 19, lines 1-3 recites “The mesh-based communication system of claim 17; further comprising a device interface operable to manage connectivity between the connected user devices; between the one or more security devices; and between one or more master devices.” Should change to “The mesh-based communication system of claim 17[[;]], further comprising a device interface operable to manage connectivity between the connected user devices[[;]], between the one or more security devices[[;]], and between one or more master devices.”
Regarding Claim 20, lines 1-3 recites “(previously amended) The mesh-based communication system of claim Q -1-7; further comprising a heartbeat manager operable to manage heartbeats from user devices connected to the device interface.” Should change to “(previously amended) The mesh-based communication system of claim 19, further comprising a heartbeat manager operable to manage heartbeats from user devices connected to the device interface.” Examiner notes because the claim recites “Previously amended” the dependency seems to be claim 19 based on the previously submitted claim 20 on 09/12/2025.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-6 recites “determining, for each identified nearby user device, permissions of the nearby ones to establish a connection level to each, and one or more connection metrics comprising at least link quality and expected path stability;” Using the published specification (US-20230103500-A1) it can be seen the closest support is paragraph [0057], “In a next step 604, if more than one conduit to primary network 310 is available (not shown), user device 512 may select a best device to use as a conduit for communication, for example, a selection may be based on a length of duration that a device is in direct contact with primary network 310, be based on permission by a particular device, based on proximity of devices, or some other information.” and paragraph [0058], “For each device, the device is identified, and permissions are determined, in step 702, to establish connection level (e.g., friend, relay device, or some other designation).” As it can be seen, there is support for determining permission but the specification does not disclose connection metrics comprising link quality and expected path stability. “Expected path stability” seems to be related to “length of duration that a device is in direct contact with primary network” but one in ordinary skill in the art would understand path stability as determining signal strength over time but again the specification does not disclose any measurement of link strength of the path to the primary network.
Claim 1, lines 8-12 recite “establishing, by the first user device, a social matrix stored in memory as an explicit device-to-device graph of all of the nearby ones of the plurality of user devices that records, for each edge between the first user device and the identified nearby user devices, the permission level and the one or more connection metrics and that is updated over time based on observed connectivity events;” Using the published specification (US-20230103500-A1) it can be seen the closest support is paragraph [0058], “the embodiment, in a first step 701, a first device determines nearby devices that are operable for connection through one or more communication protocols (for example, via Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, NFC) or some other interconnect protocol. For each device, the device is identified, and permissions are determined, in step 702, to establish connection level (e.g., friend, relay device, or some other designation).” There seems to be no support for storing the social matrix in memory as an explicit device-to-device graph and record the one or more connection metrics and that is updated over time based on observed connectivity events.
Claim 1, lines 19-21 recites “selecting, by the first user device, one of the connected user devices using the social matrix by applying the permission level as a constraint and the connection metrics as a selection criterion,” Using the published specification (US-20230103500-A1) it can be seen the closest support is paragraph [0057], “In a next step 604, if more than one conduit to primary network 310 is available (not shown), user device 512 may select a best device to use as a conduit for communication, for example, a selection may be based on a length of duration that a device is in direct contact with primary network 310, be based on permission by a particular device, based on proximity of devices, or some other information.” This limitation is referring to “one or more connection metrics comprising at least link quality and expected path stability” and as explained above, the specification does not support “at least link quality and expected path stability” reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention and therefore rejected under new matter.
Claim 17, lines 8-13 recites, “the controller further configured to obtain. from the first user device, a social matrix that comprises an explicit device-to-device graph including, for each edge, a permission level and one or more connection metrics comprising at least link quality and expected path stability, and to apply the permission level as a constraint and the connection metrics as selection criteria when selecting routing paths across the plurality of user devices;” Using the published specification (US-20230103500-A1) it can be seen the closest support is paragraph [0057], “In a next step 604, if more than one conduit to primary network 310 is available (not shown), user device 512 may select a best device to use as a conduit for communication, for example, a selection may be based on a length of duration that a device is in direct contact with primary network 310, be based on permission by a particular device, based on proximity of devices, or some other information.” and paragraph [0058], “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating a method for communicatively connecting authorized device connections in a mesh-based emergency response system, according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention. According to the embodiment, in a first step 701, a first device determines nearby devices that are operable for connection through one or more communication protocols (for example, via Wi-Fi®, Bluetooth®, NFC) or some other interconnect protocol. For each device, the device is identified, and permissions are determined, in step 702, to establish connection level (e.g., friend, relay device, or some other designation). Once all reachable devices are considered, a social matrix of all connected devices is established in step 702.” Claim 17 added similar amendment to claim 1 and thus using the same analysis the specification does not provide adequate support for the amended claims.
Claim 17, lines 21-25 recite “determining, using the social matrix, which connected user devices of the plurality of user devices are connected either directly or through others of the plurality of user devices to the primary network. to select one of the connected user devices by applying the permission level as a constraint and the connection metrics as selection criteria, and to send the message from the first user device to the selected connected user device.” Using the published specification (US-20230103500-A1) it can be seen the closest support is paragraph [0057], “In a next step 604, if more than one conduit to primary network 310 is available (not shown), user device 512 may select a best device to use as a conduit for communication, for example, a selection may be based on a length of duration that a device is in direct contact with primary network 310, be based on permission by a particular device, based on proximity of devices, or some other information.” This limitation is referring to “one or more connection metrics comprising at least link quality and expected path stability” and as explained above, the specification does not support “at least link quality and expected path stability” reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 2-16, and 18-20 are all further rejected under 112(a) as they do not remedy the new matter in the parent claims.
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights