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 .
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered and fully considered..
Claims 1-20 are pending of which claims 1, 17, 19 and 20 are independent.
The IDS(s) submitted on 10/23/2025 has not been considered as no translation was provided.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 in the first paragraph, in the Remarks filed on 12/10/25, with respect to independent claim 1, the anticipation rejection based on Di-Marco ‘s disclosure fails to teach the limitation reciting “… in response to a routing table of the first node containing at least one route to the destination node, sending, to the first neighbor node, a first discovery response message comprising first information of the at least one route…”
Applicant conveniently argues by challenging examiner’s assumption that stated “One can reasonably assume if it is only one route then the route entry is returned without further discovery” in the second paragraph of page 8. Then Applicant proceeds to argue on page 8 that the cited paragraph 52 Di-Marco teaches that in a scenario where the relay node inspects the table its routing table and explicitly finds a known route (Route 1) to the destination instead of returning a response according to Di-Marco’s paragraph 52 rather than relay node 12 itself returning a route response sends a Route Request message to the destination RD node 16 and hence Applicant surmises Di-Marco teaches away from both examiner’s assumption and the claimed limitation.
Finally on page 10 of the Remarks in the second line Applicant points out that the mechanism in Di-Marco is designed to choose between "unicast or broadcast" for the request message, not to choose between a request and a response. This is consistent with [0052]-even when the relay node has a known route entry, the relay node does not generate/return the route response; it forwards a route request so that the destination can generate the response. The Office Action relies on an assumption that contradicts the explicit text of the cited reference. Because Di-Marco teaches transmitting a second route request (via unicast) rather than a discovery response when a route is known, Di-Marco fails to anticipate the claimed method.
Examiner’s Response: First the examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments and conclusions reached.
a) One needs to carefully evaluate what is really claimed in claim 1. All claim 1 is claiming effectively is a first node (corresponds to Relay Node RN 12 in Fig. 2 of Di-Marco) receives a first discovery request for a route to destination node (corresponds to RD 16 in Fig. 2 of Di-Marco) and the first node inspects its routing table and if there is a route to the destination node then a first discovery response of the first message comprising the information of the at least one route is required to be returned. Up to this point there is no misunderstanding as this interpretation of the claim is consistent with Applicant’s position as reflected in the argument.
The difference comes in the fact that Applicant assumes there should be an immediate discovery response to the first discovery request received by the first node(i.e. Relay Node 12 in Di-Marco’s Fig. 2) if the routing table contains at least one route to the destination. The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the limitation in question.
Di-Marco’s Relay Node RN12 receives the first discovery request and examines the routing table to identify a route to destination of Di-Marco ‘s RD16 exists and if it exists it takes a few actions. The route to the destination RD 16 in the routing table is from a different origin RO14B in Di-Marco’s Fig. 2. Since a route to the destination exists it sends a unicast message to see if the destination can provide a better route to the destination from the route that originated the first route discovery which is RO 14A in Di-Marc’s Fig. 2. Apparently a better route to the destination RD 16 is identified for RO 14A and is returned and RN 12 consequently updates the Routing Table and eventually returns a discovery response to RO 14A with the best route to RD16.
Now, clearly Di-Marco teaches an eventual response to the first discovery request with a first information of the at least one route – route to the destination RD16. The response to the first discovery request is sent by the first node /Relay Node RN 12 to the RO node as evidenced by Di-Marco’s disclosure in paragraphs 10 and 17. Conveniently, Applicant did not acknowledge paragraphs 10 and 17 explicitly stating a response to the request received by the first node is sent to the RO node that originated the request. For the record paragraph 10 states,
“[0010] In some embodiments, the relay node receives, in response to the route request message, a route response message that indicates a route selected by the route destination node. In this case, the relay node may transmit the route response message towards the route origination node via unicast.”
The claim never requires an immediate response to the first discovery request and the claim only requires route to the destination irrespective of the origin and hence any route to destination RD 16 meets the limitation.
The examiner was able to interpret Di-Marco’s disclosure in paragraphs 51-52 in the manner described above because the claim limitation was broad. The examiner has done his due diligence as he has indicated the rejection on record based on Di-Marco’s can be overcome by stating in lines 1-5 of page 4 of the Office Action mailed on 09/10/2025 , “ Examiner notes here that Di-Marco discloses checking the routing table for an entry and if an entry exists a response is sent back to the first neighbor node with the best route after doing further discovery by unicasting and still teaches the limitation as the limitation does not require not doing further discovery when route is identified in the routing table.”
Finally, the last limitation is indicating if there is route to the destination in the table then the first node/Relay Node RN 12 sends a new discovery request to a different second neighbor and Di-Marco in paragraph 51 teaches sending a new route discovery request by broadcasting the request to many secondary neighbors.
b) Applicant has made the center piece of the Applicant’s argument the examiner’s mere assumption that if only one route to the destination from the same source that made the request is in the table then the route return will be returned without the relay node performing further discovery. Applicant can choose to ignore as the rejection does not rely on that assumption and was merely an effort by the examiner to show how much one should appreciate Di-Marco ‘s disclosure.
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, 2, 5. 6, 11, 17, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di -Marco et al (US20190253951A1).
Regarding claim 1, Di-Marco discloses a method (i.e. Figs. 1-22) , comprising: receiving, at a first node (i.e. paragraphs 53-54 relay node 12/RN 12 in Fig. 2 is the first node ) from a first neighbor node (i.e. Route Origination Node 14/RO 14 in Fig. 2 is the first neighbor node) in a mesh network (i.e. mesh network 10 of Fig. 2) , a first discovery request comprising a first request for a route to a destination node in the mesh network (i.e. in Figs. 4A/B the RO node/first neighbor node sends the Route Discovery Request message/RREQ 44 to the Relay Node/RN);
in response to a routing table of the first node (i.e. Fig. 2 RN 12 has Routing Table 18 ) and containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. Routing Table 18 two Route 1 to Destination RD 16), sending, to the first neighbor node, a first discovery response message comprising first information of the at least one route (i.e. first node/RN 12 sends a first discovery Response RREP to first neighbor node up on determining the route to the destination in the routing table 18 exists- see paragraphs 51, 52, 10 and 17 Examiner notes here that Di-Marco discloses checking the routing table for an entry and if an entry exists a response is sent back to the first neighbor node with the best route after doing further discovery by unicasting and still teaches the limitation as the limitation does not require not doing further discovery when route is identified in the routing table. One can reasonably assume if it is only one route then the route entry is returned without further discovery) ; and
in response to the routing table not containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. if the routing table does not contain the routing path to the destination then a secondary Route Request is broadcast to a plurality of second nodes as detailed in paragraph 53 and Fig 3 block 120) , sending, to a second neighbor node, a second discovery request comprising a second request for a route to the destination node.(See Fig. 1, Fig. 3 block 120, Fig. 6 block 320 and paragraph 53 indicating a plurality of second neighbor nodes receiving the second discovery request/RREQ message in broadcast form)
Regarding claim 17, Di-Marco discloses an apparatus (i.e. first node is Relay Node shown in 1-4B and is show in circuitry form in Fig. 11), processing circuitry (Fig. 11 processing circuitry 600) configured to:
receive, at a first node (i.e. paragraphs 53-54 relay node 12/RN 12 in Fig. 2 is the first node ) from a first neighbor node (i.e. Route Origination Node 14/RO 14 in Fig. 2 is the first neighbor node) in a mesh network (i.e. mesh network 10 of Fig. 2) , a first discovery request comprising a first request for a route to a destination node in the mesh network (i.e. in Figs. 4A/B the RO node/first neighbor node sends the Route Discovery Request message/RREQ 44 to the Relay Node/RN);
in response to a routing table of the first node (i.e. Fig. 2 RN 12 has Routing Table 18 ) and containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. Routing Table 18 two Route 1 to Destination RD 16), sending, to the first neighbor node, a first discovery response message comprising first information of the at least one route (i.e. first node/RN 12 sends a first discovery Response RREP to first neighbor node up on determining the route to the destination in the routing table 18 exists- see paragraphs 51, 52, 10 and 17 Examiner notes here that Di-Marco discloses checking the routing table for an entry and if an entry exists a response is sent back to the first neighbor node with the best route after doing further discovery by unicasting and still teaches the limitation as the limitation does not require not doing further discovery when route is identified in the routing table. One can reasonably assume if it is only one route then the route entry is returned without further discovery) ; and
in response to the routing table not containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. if the routing table does not contain the routing path to the destination then a secondary Route Request is broadcast to a plurality of second nodes as detailed in paragraph 53 and Fig 3 block 120) , sending, to a second neighbor node, a second discovery request comprising a second request for a route to the destination node.(See Fig. 1, Fig. 3 block 120, Fig. 6 block 320 and paragraph 53 indicating a plurality of second neighbor nodes receiving the second discovery request/RREQ message in broadcast form)
Regarding claim 19, Di-Marco discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 11 memory 620) storing instructions that when executed by a processor (i.e. processing circuitry 600) cause the processor to perform:
receiving, at a first node (i.e. paragraphs 53-54 relay node 12/RN 12 in Fig. 2 is the first node ) from a first neighbor node (i.e. Route Origination Node 14/RO 14 in Fig. 2 is the first neighbor node) in a mesh network (i.e. mesh network 10 of Fig. 2) , a first discovery request comprising a first request for a route to a destination node in the mesh network (i.e. in Figs. 4A/B the RO node/first neighbor node sends the Route Discovery Request message/RREQ 44 to the Relay Node/RN);
in response to a routing table of the first node (i.e. Fig. 2 RN 12 has Routing Table 18 ) and containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. Routing Table 18 two Route 1 to Destination RD 16), sending, to the first neighbor node, a first discovery response message comprising first information of the at least one route (i.e. first node/RN 12 sends a first discovery Response RREP to first neighbor node up on determining the route to the destination in the routing table 18 exists- see paragraphs 51, 52, 10 and 17 Examiner notes here that Di-Marco discloses checking the routing table for an entry and if an entry exists a response is sent back to the first neighbor node with the best route after doing further discovery by unicasting and still teaches the limitation as the limitation does not require not doing further discovery when route is identified in the routing table. One can reasonably assume if it is only one route then the route entry is returned without further discovery) ; and
in response to the routing table not containing at least one route to the destination node (i.e. if the routing table does not contain the routing path to the destination then a secondary Route Request is broadcast to a plurality of second nodes as detailed in paragraph 53 and Fig 3 block 120) , sending, to a second neighbor node, a second discovery request comprising a second request for a route to the destination node.(See Fig. 1, Fig. 3 block 120, Fig. 6 block 320 and paragraph 53 indicating a plurality of second neighbor nodes receiving the second discovery request/RREQ message in broadcast form)
Regarding claim 2, Di-Marco discloses, the method of claim 1, wherein the first node, the first neighbor node, and the second neighbor node each are one of a user equipment (UE) and a base station. (See paragraph 3 indicating the mesh network relay node is a router which is an access point or base station and the low powered BLE nodes can be mapped to the broad term user equipment)
Regarding claim 5, Di-Marco discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second discovery requests and the first discovery response message are sent by one of unicast, broadcast, and groupcast.(See Fig/ 1 unicast 26 and broadcast 28 – see Fig. 3 block 120 and Fig. 6 block 340)
Regarding claim 6, Di-Marco discloses 6. the method of claim 1, wherein the first information of the at least one route comprises at least one of a hop count, a measure of route quality, and an enumeration of nodes along the route. (See paragraphs 6 and 51 and 52 where number of hops and quality/best route is identified in the response)
Regarding claim 11, Di-Marco discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from the second neighbor node in the mesh network, a second discovery response message comprising second information of at least one route to the destination node; (See Paragraphs 6, 51, 52 and 60 where the Relay Node 12 in Figure 2 after broadcasting secondary discovery request 24 receives secondary response 30 comprising a second information indicating which of the two Route 1 in Table 18 are best )
updating the routing table of the first node by adding the at least one route; (i.e. per paragraphs 6, 51,, 52, and 60 the best route from RO node to RD node is added/updated) and
transmitting, to the first neighbor node in the mesh network, a third discovery response message comprising third information of the at least one route.(See in Fig. 4A the Route Discovery Response is sent to the RO/first neighbor node via message 52. See paragraphs 60 and 61)
Regarding claim 15, Di-Marco discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second and third discovery response messages are sent by one of unicast, broadcast, and groupcast.(See Fig/ 1 unicast 26 and broadcast 28 – see Fig. 3 block 120 and Fig. 6 block 340)
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected in the same scope as claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected in the same scope as claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di-Marco in view of Cheng et al (US 20230217232 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Di-Marco discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first node establishes connections to the first and second neighbors by one of a PC5 unicast link, a radio resource control (RRC) connection, and a PC5-RRC connection.
Cheng, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the first node establishes connections to the first and second neighbors by one of a PC5 unicast link, a radio resource control (RRC) connection, and a PC5-RRC connection. (See paragraphs 106 and 109 with respect to Fig. 7 block 724 where between UE 702 and UE 704 PC5 unicast communication is established)
In view of the above, having Di-Marco’s Route Discovery scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Chen’s technique of establishing PC5 Communication, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Di-Marco’s Route Discovery scheme as taught by Chen’s technique of establishing PC5 Communication, since Chen states in paragraph 30 that the modification results in allowing sidelink communication between UEs using PC5 interface within New Radio(NR) V2X.
Regarding claim 4, Di-Marco discloses the method of claim 1,but fails to disclose wherein the first and second discovery requests and the first discovery response message are messages of a PCS5-S protocol.
Cheng, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the first and second discovery requests and the first discovery response message are messages of a PCS5-S protocol. (See Paragraph 129 detailing discovery request/response message of a PC5-S signaling protocol)
In view of the above, having Di-Marco’s Route Discovery scheme and then given the well- established teaching of Chen’s technique of establishing PC5 Communication, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Di-Marco’s Route Discovery scheme as taught by Chen’s technique of establishing PC5 Communication, since Chen states in paragraph 30 that the modification results in allowing sidelink communication between UEs using PC5 interface within New Radio(NR) V2X.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected in the same scope as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 12-13, and 16 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
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 HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474