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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pragada et al. (US 2015/0382275) in view of Deenoo et al. (US 2015/0373618) and Rofougaran et al. (US 2010/0081430). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Pragada discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a first participant computing device in a mesh network (fig. 1C, any of items 152; fig. 1D, any of items 172; figs. 2A-2B, 6, 10-11, 14 and 17-21B), a communication for a destination computing device (step 1820; para. 176, especially the second through fifth sentences; note: forwarding packets by intermediate nodes based on pre-established routes using pre-selected neighbors); determining, by the first participant computing device, a route from the first participant computing device to the destination computing device (para. 176, third sentences; paras. 141 and 145; fig. 12; note: route pre-determined by the network); selecting, by the first participant computing device, a second participant computing device in the mesh network that is within line-of-sight of the first participant computing device (para. 65, next hop neighbor for routing; paras. 74-75 and 101-106; para. 55, third sentence; para. 2, penultimate sentence) and the first participant computing device is to transmit the communication along the selected route from the first participant computing device to the destination computing device (para. 149-150; paras. 174 and 176; note: each node includes a scheduler and data frame manager for control and data frames); and transmitting, by the first participant computing device, the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device (paras. 176 and 178; paras. 60-61).
However, Pragada fails to disclose selecting, by the first participant computing device, one or more radio parameters based on the selection of the second participant computing device along the selected route; and transmitting, by the first participant computing device, the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device based on the one or more selected radio parameters. Deenoo (paras. 130, 177 and 219; note: neighbor association based on power, modulation and coding, and time/frequency multiplexing; para. 140, last sentence) and Rofougaran (fig. 2; paras. 48 (especially the last sentence), 49, 54-55, 65 and 79; note: selection of a protocol, modulation, rate, etc. for data exchange with a neighbor; note: MMW communication as similar to Pragada, paras. 56 and 193) each disclose selecting communication parameters for communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disclose selecting, by the first participant computing device, one or more radio parameters based on the selection of the second participant computing device along the selected route; and transmitting, by the first participant computing device, the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device based on the one or more selected radio parameters in the invention of Pragada. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing specific attributes for communication between two devices as is known in the art (Deenoo, paras. 130, 140, 177 and 219; Rofougaran, fig. 2 and paras. 48-49, 54-55, 65 and 79; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the one or more radio parameters further comprises: selecting, by the first participant computing device, a transmission spectrum (Deenoo, para. 130; note: frequency multiplexing), a protocol (Rofougaran, para 48-49), a power level (Deenoo, para. 130), and an antenna (Rofougaran, paras. 48 and 56; Deenoo, para. 68 and 219; note: antenna array and antenna beamforming) to transmit the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device along the selected route.
Regarding claim 3, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the one or more radio parameters further comprises: selecting, by the first participant computing device, a frequency (Deenoo, para. 130; note: frequency multiplexing) in which to transmit the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device along the selected route.
Regarding claim 4, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device based on the one or more selected radio parameters further comprises: employing, by the first participant computing device, a software defined radio (Pragada, paras. 42 and 195 (especially the last sentence), and claim 12; Rofougaran, paras. 57, 62 and 124; note: a program, software or firmware to implement the communication functions) to transmit the communication to the second participant computing device using the one or more selected radio parameters.
Regarding claim 5, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the communication from the first participant computing device to the second participant computing device based on the one or more selected radio parameters further comprises: utilizing, by the first participant computing device, an antenna controller to form and steer a transmission beam via a selected antenna Rofougaran, paras. 48, 54 and 56; Deenoo, para. 68 and 177; note: antenna array and antenna beamforming and a communication processor as an antenna controller for controlling the antennas for communication) to the second participant computing device to transmit the communication based on the selected radio parameters.
Regarding claims 8-11, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-3 and 5, respectively. In addition, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran teaches and makes obvious a system of a first participant in a mesh network (Pragada, figs. 1C-1D and 19-21B), comprising: an antenna configured to transmit and receive communications (Pragada, para. 55); a multi-spectral (Rofougaran, para. 43, penultimate sentence) platform gateway (Pragada, fig. 1C, item 152a; fig. 1D, item 172d; fig. 2A, item 210; paras. 50-51; note: aggregation point and fiber POP) configured to perform the method of claims 1-3 and 5.
Regarding claims 14-18, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-5, respectively. In addition, Pragada discloses a participant computing device (fig. 1C, any of items 152; fig. 1D, any of items 172), comprising: a memory that stores computer instructions (para. 195); a transmitter configured to transmit communications to other participant computing devices (para. 195, last sentence; figs. 1C-1D and 19-21B; paras. 50-51, 55 and 188 (last sentence)); and a processor configured to execute the computer instructions (para. 195) to perform the method of claims 1-3 and 5.
Claims 7, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pragada in view of Deenoo in view of Rofougaran as applied to claim 1, 8 or 14 above, and further in view of Adella et al. (US 2018/0213460; note: Examiner believes claims 7, 13 and 20 lack support in the provisional application 62/467,572 and thus the provisional application 62/448,550 of Adella is not required for the rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, further comprising: updating, by the first participant computing device, a participant table to indicate that the first participant computing device is to route communications to the second participant computing device based on information received from the second participant computing device. However, Adella discloses these features (fig. 3-9; paras. 66 and 72-75; note: device 252 receives link information from device 254 and creates a table having device 254 as the next hop device for destination device 108; note: updating step 724). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have updating, by the first participant computing device, a participant table to indicate that the first participant computing device is to route communications to the second participant computing device based on information received from the second participant computing device in the invention of Pragada in view of Deenoo and Rofougaran. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing for and transmitting to a next hop node for a packet to reach its destination as is known in the art (Adella, figs. 3-9 and paras. 66 and 72-75; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12 and 19 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. Examiner believes claims 6, 12 and 19 lack support in the provisional application 62/467,572 but the claims are nevertheless considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462