DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 29 December 2025, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 30 December 2022 in which claims 1, 11, 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 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. The claims are amended to add “determine that implementation of a first instance of a spanning tree protocol caused a first set of communication paths to be established in a network of one or more satellite devices” while then amending to also add “establishing the second set of communication paths and not being able to establish the first set of communication paths”. (emphasis added) It is still unclear how the first set of communication paths are established and yet then not being established. The paths do not cease to exist and having been established as the paths, as best understood, are still established and exist. However, based on the arguments, the use of the paths being avoided is perhaps the intent of the amendment, but is not clear. In other words, as an example, a path from A-B-C is established as well as A-D-C, A is being modified for usage to B being not available, and tricking not to use B and instead use D, but A-B is still “established”. In the response to arguments, Applicant notes the Office Action missed the claims reciting two instances of the STP. However, while there are two instances, the antecedent basis is for the same first set of communication paths. In fact, the amendment specifically adds that the first instance caused a first set of communication paths to be established. The second instance is not claimed to be implemented instead of the first but rather after the first instance, the second instance cannot undo or is not claimed to undo the first establishment, the establishment cannot be undone and claimed to not being able to do what is already done.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rahman et al (hereinafter “Rahman”, 2006/0268749).
As per Claim 1, Rahman discloses a communication system comprising:
memory configured to store a network policy (at least paragraph 168, 68; memory); and
a network controller, implemented in circuitry, coupled to the memory (at least paragraph 40, 112) and configured to:
determine that implementation of a first instance of a spanning tree protocol caused a first set of communication paths to be established in a network of one or more satellite devices (at least paragraph 112; running a first instance of a wireless spanning tree protocol that substantially conforms to the standard IEEE 802.1 spanning tree protocol; maintaining information on a spanning tree topology for a set of wireless network entities that includes the particular wireless network entity), wherein implementation of the spanning tree protocol is a manner in which to establish communication paths in the network (at least paragraph 41, 81-82; One aspect of the WSTP Invention is that using an instance of the WSTP wireless spanning tree protocol proactively prevents any type of temporary loops by only establishing radio links that are warranted by the spanning tree protocol algorithm; spanning tree protocols provide alternate backup paths);
determine that a second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths (at least paragraph 64, 70-71, 130-132, 165; Fig. 3; policy ranking importance of factors having different weightings for tree path costs, multiple spanning tree topologies, second spanning tree topology);
based on the second set of communication paths being more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths, determine at least one communication port of at least one satellite device whose usage, if modified, would result in a second instance of the spanning tree protocol, if implemented, establishing the second set of communication paths and not being able to establish the first set of communication paths (at least paragraph 78, 81-85; a wireless spanning tree protocol provides alternate and/or backup links wherein a wireless Dbridge/mesh point/satellite device establishes dormant alternate links/paths when an active link/port goes down; par. 165: mobile mesh point 223 part of only mesh 220- moving close enough to mesh 410- MP 223 now establishing second set of communication paths and implements/runs two instances of WTSP, one for mesh 220, another for mesh 410; depending on usage of MPP 221 becoming inferior, 223 uses second set of paths to uplink to 211 portal; MP 217 also modifying paths to use newly added 223 to route to 211/221; IEEE 802.1 wired spanning tree protocols provide alternate backup paths, e.g., operational links that are blocked. One aspect of the present invention is that a wireless spanning tree protocol provides alternate and/or backup links; Establishing dormant alternate and/or backup links with wireless Dbridges, and activating such a dormant link when an active link goes down; activate an already established link by sending a "wakeup" message to the alternate/backup wireless Dbridge); and
output, based on the determination that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths, one or more commands to modify the usage of the at least one communication port of the at least one satellite device to cause the second instance of implementation of the spanning tree protocol to establish the second set of communication paths in the network (at least paragraph 165, 64, 70-71, 130-132; The mesh point 223 is now part of both spanning tree topologies and thus runs (at least two) instances of WSTP with the root mesh points of at least two tree topologies having an uplink to the network 201. An aspect of the present invention is that the mesh point 223 can perform load balancing between the first and second mesh point topologies. For example, if the mesh point 223 sees that the uplink at the mesh point portal 211 of the first mesh is superior to the uplink at the mesh point portal 221 of the second mesh 220, mesh point 223 routes traffic via the first mesh point portal 211 using the first instance WSTP. Thus, for example, suppose traffic is sent from a client station 241 of an AP 225 in a BSS 440, with AP 225 also being a mesh point of the second mesh 220. And suppose that the tree topology of mesh 220 is such that traffic is routed via mesh point 223 prior to arriving at the root mesh point 221 of the mesh 220. The traffic is routed by the mesh point 223 according to the uplink properties of the mesh point portals 211 and 221 to achieve load balancing; at least paragraph 78, 81-85; alternate backup paths, e.g., operational links that are blocked; dormant path not activated).
As per Claim 2. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to determine that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths, the network controller is configured to determine that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy by a sufficient threshold than the first set of communication paths (at least paragraph 64, 70-76, 165; the uplink at the mesh point portal 211 of the first mesh is superior to the uplink at the mesh point portal 221 of the second mesh 220, mesh point 223 routes traffic via the first mesh point portal 211 using the first instance WSTP).
As per Claim 3. The communication system of claim 1, wherein the network controller is configured to: determine one or more additional sets of communication paths in addition to the first set of communication paths and the second set of communication paths; and determine policy alignment values of the one or more additional sets of communication paths, the second set of communication paths, and the first set of communication paths based on the network policy, wherein to determine that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths, the network controller is configured to: compare the respective policy alignment values of the one or more additional sets of communication paths, of the second set of communication paths and of the first set of communication paths; and determine that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths based on the comparison, and wherein to output the one or more commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands based on the usage of the at least one communication port (at least paragraph 64, 70-76, 165, 78; based on network policy of mesh network and weighting of parameters, activating alternate link based on first set of communication paths going down or not being superior).
As per Claim 4. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to output the one or more commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands to enable a disabled communication port of the at least one satellite device or disable an enabled communication port of the at least one satellite device (at least paragraph 64, 70-76, 78, 165; Fig. 5activating link/port).
As per Claim 5. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to output the one or more commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands to change a bridge to which the at least communication port of the at least one satellite device is mounted (at least Fig. 5, paragraph 107, 176; changing from connecting to first wireless bridging node/mesh point MP to second, eg. 215 or 211 from 221).
As per Claim 6. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to output the one or commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands to force an enabled communication port of the at least one satellite device to transition from a current trunking basic service set (BSS) to a different trunking BSS (at least paragraph 123, 133-134, 165; Fig. 2, 5; load balancing from one trunk to another trunk, mesh part of basic service set 240).
As per Claim 7. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to output the one or commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands to force an enabled communication port of the at least one satellite device to remain unassociated with any trunking basic service set (BSS) (at least paragraph 123, 132-134, 165; Fig. 2-3, 5).
As per Claim 8. The communication system of claim 1, wherein to output the one or more commands, the network controller is configured to output the one or more commands without modifying parameters of the spanning tree protocol (at least paragraph 165, 64, 70-71, 130-132; using other instances of WSTP not changing STP).
As per Claim 9. The communication system of claim 1, wherein the network policy comprises maximizing throughput between gateway and the satellite devices (at least paragraph 165, 64, 70-71, 130-132; if the mesh point 223 sees that the uplink at the mesh point portal 211 of the first mesh is superior to the uplink at the mesh point portal 221 of the second mesh 220, mesh point 223 routes traffic via the first mesh point portal 211 using the first instance WSTP.; signal strength and quality).
As per Claim 10. The communication system of claim 1, wherein the network comprises a local area network (LAN) (at least Fig. 5).
Claims 11-20 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rahman does not disclose the amendment of claim 1 including:
determine at least one communication port of at least one satellite device whose usage, if modified, would result in a second instance of the spanning tree protocol, if implemented, establishing the second set of communication paths and not being able to establish the first set of communication paths
However, Rahman discloses in at least paragraph 78, 81-85, that an operation path that is used by the device mesh point is being used for communication, and when usage is modified as when the active link goes down, the wireless spanning tree protocol provides alternate and/or backup links, wherein a wireless Dbridge/mesh point or satellite device establishes dormant alternate links/paths at such point of link failure.
Rahman, similarly teaches determining a path to use based on cost, and when costs are equal, using other factors like priority or signal strength (at least paragraph 68-76). Rahman also teaches there being multiple paths, one is activated for use with others dormant and unavailable and avoided. Thus, a first path is selected for use having the best cost and characteristics and network policy such as quality/signal strength. But then, the cost changes or the quality and signal strength deteriorate such that an alternate path best aligns with the network policy, Rahman then activates a dormant path for use and deactivates the dormant or alternate link as the quality is not as good and is not preferred (at least paragraph 78, 81-85). This path is ‘blocked’ and thus avoided as per the claim language. Rahman thus continues to teach the claim including the claim amendment.
Modifying the usage, as claimed is rather broad under the claimed scope, however, the specification provides in par. 57 “That is, by modifying the usage of communication port 110B so that communication port 110B is no longer communicating with gateway device 104, network controller 108 may “trick” the STP implementation into allowing satellite device 106A and satellite device 106B to communicate via communication path 118 (e.g., wired communication path 118) through communication ports 116A and 116B.”
And in par. 54 “Network controller 108 may output, based on the determination that the second set of communication paths is more aligned with the network policy than the first set of communication paths, one or more commands to modify usage of at least one communication port of at least one satellite device. As described in more detail, modifying usage of at least one communication port of at least one satellite device may cause a second instance of implementation of the spanning tree protocol to establish the second set of communication paths in the network…”
Thus, such usage modification is described as simply switching from the first set of paths to the second, modifying t not use the first set of paths anymore, use the second instead. The controller may be ‘tricked’ by sending a command to switch, thus modifying it to not use that first set of paths. Just as with Rahman ‘tricking’ by sending a command to use a lower cost set of paths than the higher cost currently being used for communication.
See also the above 112 Rejection as the claim continues to claim an established path is not established.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights