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 Amendment
This Action is in response to remarks/ amendments filed on 02/05/2026.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 15-16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 11 & 20 are independent.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, and remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments against cited reference to BIN with respect to rejection of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 (see pages 8-10 of REMARKS filed 02/05/2026) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
NOTE: Examiner finds that the new limitation “multi-point link that connects a first node to at least a second node and a third node” of currently amended claim 1 is different in scope to the limitation “multi-point link connects more than two nodes” previous recited in claim 7. For e.g., the claimed concept now requires one node to connect to multiple other nodes using same/common link (such as a broadcast/ multicast/ LAN link, as eluded to in at least paragraphs [0055] and/or [0085] of the instant application), and is therefore seen as a narrower version of concept previous recited in claim 7 that only required three nodes being connected using same/common link in any network setup.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 13-14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIN et al. (hereinafter, BIN, WO 2014185768 A1) in view of Midani et al. (hereinafter, Midani, US 6327266 B1) in view of NAMBATA et al. (hereinafter, NAMBATA, EP 1752738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BIN discloses a method of selecting links for a network subgraph (see page 2: lines 21-24; a method to enhance efficiency of packet forwarding in a wireless mesh network by selecting and utilizing the best possible route or path in the given network; the disclosed method takes into consideration of various factors affecting the condition of the transmitting nodes and paths in performing the route selection), the method comprising:
obtaining at least two link costs of at least two links selected from a plurality of links in a network (see page 2: lines 26-28; compute a link cost for the each of the path; also see page 7: lines 2-3 in view of Fig.1:30; computing link cost by accumulating node costs of each path; also see page 9: lines 18-22 in view of Fig.3:35; derives the link cost of each path by accumulating the node costs of the nodes of one path);
obtaining at least two node costs of at least two nodes connected by links of the plurality of links in the network (see page 2: lines 26-28; derive a node cost for each of the nodes in the formed paths; also see page 7: lines 1-2 and page 9: line 21 in view of Fig.3:34; computing node cost for each node forming the plurality of path);
calculating link costs and node costs based on any combination of the at least two link costs, the at least two node costs, and the weighting parameter (see page 9: line 18 – page 10: line 10; compute the node and link costs; also see page 11: line 30 – page 12: line 5; disclosed method is set to periodically re-compute the node and link cost even in the absence of substantial change in the structures of the mesh network that re-calculating the node cost of each node and link cost is performed at a predetermined frequency; also see page 3: lines 10-20; computing node cost for each node based on radio condition, channel quality and network utilization of the respective node; computing link cost by accumulating or averaging node costs of each path);
selecting a link having a lowest link and node cost among the plurality of links (see page9: line 18 – page 10: line 10; method preferably computes node cost (34) for each of the nodes forming the plurality of path and derives the link cost (35) of each path by accumulating the node costs of the nodes of one path. With the involved source node surrounded by multiple neighboring nodes, link cost for each potential single hop is calculated and the hop or path with the lowest link cost is utilized to forward the packet; the link cost is derived by accumulating all the hop costs of each single possible path to determine the best route to have the packet data transmitted; disclosed method in the route selection shall render the mesh network to opt the route of Gateway-->D-->B-->A-->AP involving three hops with the lowest cost of 11; also see page 11: lines 20-25; select the best route from each possible node and establish the multi-hop path transmission from the source to destination), wherein selecting the link is performed without computing any global metric over the entire network, network subgraph, or path (see page9: line 18 – page 10: line 10; method preferably computes node cost (34) for each of the nodes forming the plurality of path and derives the link cost (35) of each path by accumulating the node costs of the nodes of one path; examiner articulates that it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that there could be nodes in the network that are not forming plurality of paths (e.g. nodes with only 1 path). As highlighted above, Bin does not take them into account, and therefore it cannot be considered as global metric. Furthermore, Bin discloses that nodes of only one path are considered when deriving the link cost, and therefore it can also not be considered as global metric. In addition, Bin is silent regarding any “global” metrics or measurement. Therefore, selecting the link is performed without computing any global metric);
storing the selected link on a node of the network (see page 4: lines 6-11; establishing a routing table, in each node, storing information regarding the link cost of each path. Preferably, the routing table are periodically updated following re-calculating of the node cost of each node and link cost at a predetermined frequency; also see page 11: lines 13-20; Upon acquiring the node costs and link costs, the disclosed method preferably has each node in the mesh network to establish or update a routing table storing the routing information (41). The routing table in the present invention is fashioned to store the calculated nodes costs of the neighboring nodes and also link costs to forward the packet to each neighboring node); and
transmitting data by the node using the selected link (see page 12: line 14; route the data packet through the path with lowest computed link cost).
BIN does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one link of the plurality of links in the network is a single multi-point link that connects a first node to at least a second and a third node; and selecting a weighting parameter based on the at least two link costs, the at least two node costs, or both.
However, Midani discloses wherein at least one link (see Fig.1:16) of the plurality of links (see Fig.1: 16 and 19) in the network (see Fig.1:10 “Access Network”) is a single multi-point link that connects a first node (see Fig.1:12) to at least a second and a third node (see Fig.1:14a-14n; also see Col.2: line 58 – Col.3: line 4; a MUNI topology for a point-to-multipoint link between network device 12 and network termination devices 14a-14n; the MUNI topology established by share media link 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Midani with BIN so that at least one link of the plurality of links in the network is a single multi-point link that connects a first node to at least a second and a third node.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to broadcast to all network termination devices over shared media link in a downstream direction, and to control and allocate upstream time slots from the network termination devices using a conventional allocation algorithm in the upstream direction (Midani: see Col.3: lines 5-13 and lines 42-42).
BIN (modified by Midani) does not explicitly disclose selecting a weighting parameter based on the at least two link costs, the at least two node costs, or both.
However, NAMBATA discloses selecting a weighting parameter based on the at least two link costs, the at least two node costs, or both (see [0114]; "K2" represents the constant or the function that defines the change rate (ratio) between the new node cost NC and the previous node cost NC0, and the value K2 is preferably the same as the change rate K1 (in the formula (1)) between the new link cost LC and the previous link cost LC0); and
selecting a link having a lowest link and node costs among the plurality of links (see [0114]; the total cost of the route A is "700" ("500" in total link cost and "200" in total node cost), for example, and the total cost of the route B is "800" ("750" in total link cost and "50" in total node cost). The total cost of the route A does not change after the learning, and is constantly selected as the optimum route)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of NAMBATA with BIN and Midani to select a weighting parameter based on the at least two link costs, the at least two node costs, or both.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the total cost of each route becomes more accurate, and optimum route can be detected with higher precision (NAMBATA: [0117]).
As for Claim(s) 11 and 20, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a network device (see page.7: line 17; gateway/ node in wireless mesh network) comprising: a storage device (see page.7: line 17; inherent component of a gateway/ node), and a processor (see page.7: line 17; inherent component of a gateway/ node); and a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions executed by a processor (see page.7: line 17; inherent component of a gateway/ node) form to carry out the steps of claim 1, rather than the method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 11 and 20.
Regarding claim 3, BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. NAMBATA further discloses wherein the weighting parameter is selected to give equal weight to the links costs and the node costs (see [0114]; "K2" represents the constant or the function that defines the change rate (ratio) between the new node cost NC and the previous node cost NC0, and the value K2 is preferably the same as the change rate K1 (in the formula (1)) between the new link cost LC and the previous link cost LC0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of NAMBATA with BIN and Midani so that the weighting parameter is selected to give equal weight to the links costs and the node costs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the total cost of each route becomes more accurate, and optimum route can be detected with higher precision (NAMBATA: [0117]).
As for Claim 13, the claim depends on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. NAMBATA further discloses wherein the weighting parameter is selected to give greater weight to the links costs than the node costs (see [0114]; "K2" in each of the formulas (2) through (4) is not necessarily the same as "K1" in the formula (1), but may be in the neighborhood of "K1" (there may be a constant difference between K1 and K2); examiner articulates that constant difference between K1 and K2 suggest that it would be obvious to give greater weight to the links costs than the node costs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of NAMBATA with BIN and Midani so that the weighting parameter is selected to give greater weight to the links costs than the node costs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the total cost of each route becomes more accurate, and optimum route can be detected with higher precision (NAMBATA: [0117]).
Regarding claim 5, BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. NAMBATA further discloses wherein the weighting parameter is selected to give greater weight to the node costs than the links costs (see [0114]; "K2" in each of the formulas (2) through (4) is not necessarily the same as "K1" in the formula (1), but may be in the neighborhood of "K1" (there may be a constant difference between K1 and K2); examiner articulates that constant difference between K1 and K2 suggest that it would be obvious to give greater weight to the node costs than the links costs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of NAMBATA with BIN and Midani so that the weighting parameter is selected to give greater weight to the node costs than the links costs.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the total cost of each route becomes more accurate, and optimum route can be detected with higher precision (NAMBATA: [0117]).
As for Claim 14, the claim depends on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 4-5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4-5.
Regarding claim 7, BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Midani further discloses wherein at least one of the links (see Fig.1: 16 and 19) is a multi-point link (see Fig.1:16) that connects more than three nodes (see Fig.1: 12 and 14a-14n; also see Col.2: line 58 – Col.3: line 4; a MUNI topology for a point-to-multipoint link between network device 12 and network termination devices 14a-14n; the MUNI topology established by share media link 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Midani with BIN and NAMBATA so that at least one of the links is a multi-point link that connects more than three nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to broadcast to all network termination devices over shared media link in a downstream direction, and to control and allocate upstream time slots from the network termination devices using a conventional allocation algorithm in the upstream direction (Midani: see Col.3: lines 5-13 and lines 42-42).
As for Claim 16, the claim depends on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIN et al. (hereinafter, BIN, WO 2014185768 A1) in view of Midani et al. (hereinafter, Midani, US 6327266 B1) in view of NAMBATA et al. (hereinafter, NAMBATA, EP 1752738 A1) in view of Bacon et al. (hereinafter, Bacon, US 20020107880 A1).
Regarding claim 2, BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. BIN (modified by Midani and NAMBATA) does not explicitly disclose wherein the links in the network are those connecting a node forming part of the network subgraph to one or more nodes not yet part of the network subgraph.
Bacon discloses wherein the links in the network are those connecting a node forming part of the network subgraph to one or more nodes not yet part of the network subgraph (see [0011] in view of Fig.1:100; Subgraph 100 contains a number of nodes 110, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150, and 155. Additionally, node 110 is connected to the rest of the graph (not shown) through edge 105; also based on teachings from [0012], the links 115 and 120 respectively in the network are connecting nodes 125 and 140 forming part of the network subgraphs 160 and 170 respectively to one or more nodes 110 not yet part of the network subgraph 160 and 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bacon with BIN, Midani and NAMBATA so that the links in the network are those connecting a node forming part of the network subgraph to one or more nodes not yet part of the network subgraph.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve number of operations for the graph or subgraph being examined (Bacon: [0063]).
As for Claim 12, the claim depends on claim 11, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-10, 15, 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections as well as rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LAI et al. (EP 3226604 A1) teaches base station 1 and the base station 2 share a same point-to-multipoint wireless backhaul link, and establish a transmission connection to the anchor.
ALLU et al. (WO 2013006154 A1) teaches "Link Aggregation” allows multiple network links connecting network switches and/or other devices to be treated as a single logical link.
Wagner (US 9294604 B1) discloses multipoint networks, such as with RS-422 communication that can span relatively large distances- up to 4,000 feet, where multiple drivers and receivers are each connected on a single bus to simultaneously transmit or receive data.
KAZMIERSKI (WO 2022015492 A1) encapsulates point-to-multipoint links over IP.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453