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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-10, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as failing to reference a claim previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 9-10, 12-16 and 18-20 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.
In reference to claims 9-10
Claim 9 is replete with antecedent basis errors and is improper because it depends from itself and claim 10 is similarly rejected because it depends from rejected claim 9.
In reference to claim 12
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the storage" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In reference to claims 13-16
Claims 13-16 are replete with antecedent basis errors and are improper because they do not depend from an independent claim but rather depend on each other.
In reference to claims 18-20
Claims 18-20 are replete with antecedent basis errors and are improper because they depend from claims 22 and 23 which do not exist.
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, 3-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685).
In reference to claim 1
Hart et al. discloses a mesh network (Abstract), comprising:
a plurality of nodes, each one wirelessly connected to at least another such node in the network (one or more nodes 315 may be in direct or indirect communication with each other via communication links 325, Fig. 3, Para. [0106]);
wherein each of the nodes includes a housing (device 400 that supports mesh topology radio may be an example of a device that performs one or more aspects of functions associated with nodes as described in Figs. 1 through 3 [i.e., the device is a node and, as shown in the figure has a housing], Fig. 4, Para. [0112]) including therein a plurality of radios arranged equidistantly around a central axis (devices 400 may include one or more mmW radios 405 and antenna pole 410 [as shown in the figure, the plurality of radios are equidistant around a central axis defined by the antenna pole], Fig. 4, Para. [0112]).
In reference to claim 3
Hart et al. discloses wherein one of the nodes is an anchor node connected to a wireless bidirectional point-to-point link (Nodes 315 may be in direct or indirect communication with each other via communication links 325, Fig. 3, Para. [0106]; Node 315-a may be seed nodes because of being connected to core network 350 and 350-a. In some cases, the mesh network may form starting from nodes 315-a, Fig. 3, Para. [0109]; a seed node may have a network connection and may share its connection to the core network with other existing neighboring nodes in the mesh network [the seed node is an anchor nade], Para. [0059]; device 905 [i.e., the node] may include components for bi-directional voice and data communications including components for transmitting and receiving communications, Fig. 9, Para, [0147]; nodes 115 may provide a point-to-point connection [the anchor node maybe connected to a wireless bidirectional point-to-point link], Para. [0053)).
In reference to claim 4
Hart et al. discloses wherein the anchor node is wirelessly coupled to a broadband connection using the wireless bidirectional point-to-point link (One or more nodes 215 may have broadband connection capability. The broadband connection capability may be provided via a connection to the core network, Fig. 2, Para. [0081]; a seed node may have a network connection and may share its connection to the core network with other existing neighboring nodes in the mesh network [the anchor node is wirelessly coupled to the broadband connection], Para. [0059]; device 905 [i.e., the node] may include components for bi-directional voice and data communications including components for transmitting and receiving communications, Fig. 9, Para. [0147]; nodes 115 may provide a point-to-point connection [the anchor node may be wirelessly coupled to a broadband connection through a bi-directional, point-to-point link], Para. [0053)).
In reference to claim 5
Hart et al. discloses wherein the anchor node is wirelessly coupled to a fiber connection using the wireless bidirectional point-to-point link (a seed node [i.e., anchor node] may have a network connection and may share its ‘connection to the core network with other existing neighboring nodes in the mesh network, Para. [0059}; device 905 [i.e., the anchor node] may include components for bi-directional voice and data communications including components for transmitting and receiving communications, Fig. 9, Para, [0147]; nodes 115 may provide a point-to-point connection, Para. [0053]; AP 505 and core network 550 may establish a connection, such as via a fiber cable [the anchor node may be wirelessly coupled to a fiber connection, which is the connection from the AP to the core network, through a bi-directional, point-to-point link], Para. [0119]).
In reference to claim 6
Vivint discloses wherein the nodes are each capable of bidirectional communication (One or more nodes 315 may be in direct or indirect communication with each other via communication links 325 [communication is bidirectional], Fig. 3, Para. [0106]; see also Para. [0147]).
In reference to claim 11
Hart et al. discloses wherein nodes are capable of receiving data and sending data, a final one of the nodes in a communication path of the network being a destination node. (One or more nodes315may be in direct or indirect communication with each other via communication links325, Fig. 3, Para. [0106]; see also Para. [0147]), a final one of the nodes in a communication path of the network being a destination node (system 300 may include node 315-b [As shown in the figure, there are multiple nodes 315-b that are found at the edges of the mesh structure and are each only connected to one other node. These end nodes may be the final nodes in communication paths and are interpreted as a destination node], Fig. 3, Para. [0106)).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2017/0366956).
In reference to claim 2
Hart et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Hart et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein, in degrees, beam spread of each of the radios equals n / 360, where n represents the total number of radios in the node.
Yoshida et al. teaches mesh network devices (Title) wherein, in degrees, beam spread of each of the radios equals n / 360, where n represents the total number of radios in the node (there are four radios 502-508 configured to communicate via eight sectors 510-524 of a mesh network devices [each of the radios covers a total of 90 degrees], Fig. 5A, Para. [0089]; The directional antennas 422 may be eight sector directional antennas that can be setup with 45 degree 3 dB beam width [the coverage area corresponds to the beam spread of each of the radios], Fig. 4A, Para. [0067)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of Hart et al. to include wherein, in degrees, beam spread of each of the radios equals n / 360, where n represents the total number of radios in the node as taught by Yoshida et al. because it provides for each radio providing equal coverage and for neighbors to be assigned to each of the radios.
In reference to claim 7
Hart et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Hart et al. discloses wherein each of the radios includes an antenna (a device 400 that supports mesh topology radio communications {i.e., a node] includes one or more mmW radios 405 and an antenna pole 410, Para. [0112]; one or more nodes 315 may connecting to neighboring visible nodes 315 [each of the radios includes an antennal, Fig. 3, Para. [0107)).
Hart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the radio includes a polarized antenna.
Yoshida et al. teaches a mesh network devices (Title) wherein the radio includes a polarized antenna (The directional antennas 422 may be eight sector directional antennas with two antennas at orthogonal polarizations in each sector [there are radios with polarized antennas], Para. [0067)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the radio of Hart et al. to include polarized antennas as taught by Yoshida et al. because it provides convenient means for communicating directionally with another node to minimize interference within the network.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685) in view of O’Keefe et al. (US 2013/0235962).
In reference to claim 8
Hart et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Hart et al. discloses wherein a first node of the plurality of nodes include an antenna and a second node of the plurality of nodes, in communication with the first node, includes an antenna (Nodes 315 may be in direct or indirect communication with each other via communication links 325, Fig. 3, Para, [0106]; devices 400 may include one or more mmW radios 405 [each of the nodes has an antenna], Fig. 4, Para. [0112]).
Hart et al. fails to explicitly disclose a left circularly polarized antenna and a right circularly polarized antenna.
O'Keefe is in the field of calibrating and compensating phase mismatch to control radiated signal polarization (Para. [0001]) and teaches a left circularly polarized antenna and a right circularly polarized antenna (a MIMO calibration device 360 is capable of adjusting RF signals from a base station 210 that are routed to a cross polarized antenna or antenna array 219, such that they are transmitted accurately as __ LHCP and RHCP signals [there may be multiple nodes with either left or right circularly polarized antennas], Para. [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of Hart et al. to include a left circularly polarized antenna and a right circularly polarized antenna because it would provide means for communication with less interference with regard to 3G UE devices within the network.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685) in view of O’Keefe et al. (US 2013/0235962), as applied to the parent claim, and further in view of Sum et al. (US 2015/0256387).
In reference to claim 9
The combination of Hart et al. and O’Keefe et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
The combination of Hart et al. and O’Keefe et al. does not teach wherein data streams between the first node and the second node are combined.
Silver is in the field of network architecture and semantics for distributed processing (Para. [0003]) and teaches data streams between the first node and the second node are combined (nodes 230 of mesh network 202 execute stream functions 510 ‘in order to generate data streams, Fig. 5, Para. [0055]; a node 230 may combine data associated with other devices or data streams to draw insights that reflect consumption, service quality and usage, possible causes of deviations from expected values, as well as bill forecasts [data streams from multiple nodes may be combined], Fig. 5, Para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of the combination of Hart et al. and O’Keefe et al. to include combining data streams as taught by Silver because it would increase bandwidth provided.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685) in view of Houaidia et al. “Inter-flow and intra-flow interference mitigation routing in wireless mesh networks”.
In reference to claim 12
Hart et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Hart et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a storage stores historical information regarding transmission quality and throughput between the nodes.
Houaidia teaches interference mitigation routing in wireless mesh networks (Title), including: a storage stores historical information regarding transmission quality and throughput between the nodes (The practical throughput is smaller than the estimated path bandwidth, which can be explained by the fact that our metric is still based on traffic history [i.e., historical information], Pg. 9, Col. 2, last paragraph through Pg. 10, Col. 2, first paragraph; Residual link capacity [the metric] is estimated using the total available bandwidth of the link, the amount of data occupying the link, and a time window [traffic historical information is stored; this information is used to determine a transmission quality metric / residual link capacity and estimating throughput between the nodes; thus, the information is historical information that relates to both transmission quality and throughput between the nodes], Pg. 6, Col. 2, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of Hart et al. to include storage that stores historical information regarding transmission quality and throughput between the nodes as taught by Hart et al. because it would provide historical information to choose routes through the network with high throughput and limited delay.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2018/0343685) in view of Basile et al. (US 2013/0291034).
In reference to claim 17
Hart et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Hart et al. fails to disclose a Network Management System (NMS) in communication with the nodes.
Basile et al. teaches network monitoring (Title) including: a Network Management System (NMS) in communication with the nodes (network monitoring is performed such that information concerning geographic location of monitored network elements, such as cable modems or the like, and associated network component topology, such as HFC components and the like, are automatically populated into a network management database for providing a visual display. Such a map provides a useful network management tool [this indicates a network management system], Para. [0029]; the map shows the nearest node 22 or other network component [the network management system communicates with the nodes], Fig. 1, Para. [0037)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of Hart et al. to include a network management system in communication with the nodes as suggested by Basile et al. because it would provide means for locating and diagnosing issues within the network (Basile, Paras. [0004]- [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 2022/0312343 pertains to a system that includes a solar panel; an electric power supply source; a wireless fronthaul access point coupled to a radio mast and in communication with a remote baseband unit, the wireless fronthaul access point further comprising a first millimeter wave wireless interface; a self-organizing network module in communication with a coordinating server; and an antenna-integrated radio for providing access to user equipments (UEs), mounted within line of sight on the radio mast with the wireless fronthaul access point, the antenna-integrated radio further comprising: a second millimeter wave wireless interface configured to receive the digital I and Q signaling information from the remote baseband unit wirelessly via the wireless fronthaul access point, wherein the wireless fronthaul access point thereby wirelessly couples the remote baseband unit and the antenna-integrated radio. Synchronization is used to pack used resource blocks to reduce the duty cycle of the PAs, thereby reducing power.
US 2020/0236735 pertains to a network that includes a first BTS may be operable to provide a first signal including a plurality of first carriers. The network may also include a second BTS operable to provide a second signal including a plurality of second carriers. The network may also include a set of one or more digital access units (DAUs), each of the one or more DAUs being coupled to at least one of the first BTS or the second BTS. A set of one or more digital remote units (DRUs) may be included in the network, each of the DRUs being coupled to one of the one or more DAUs and operable to broadcast the first signal or the second signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights