DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to amendment for Application 18/274446 filed on 3/8/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. The specification still objected to because the abstract is not concise statement. Also, why was the abstract’s amendments done in a way similar to the amendments done to claims? Applicant may just delete or re-write the abstract.
4. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 3/8/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 102 with respect to Claims 1, 5 and 6 were considered and found unpersuasive because Choi still teaches the limitations. However, the new amendment required new art making the arguments with respect to the new amendment moot in view of new ground of rejection. The new art was used to teach in then claims 2-4. See the updated rejection.
5. Double Patenting rejection is being held in abeyance as requested.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims use the term “such that” which may render the limitations that follow to be intended use. Applicant may amend “such that” with “wherein” clause to positively recite the limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification/Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refer to purported merits and figures. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Examiner is not sure if the citation list in ¶0003-¶0004 is incorporated by reference or not. Also, the applications are not provided along the filed application. The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to a foreign application or patent is improper unless the incorporate. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 1 recites “communication unit” that invokes 112 (f) because the limitation uses a generic placeholder “unit” followed by function language “configured to” where the placeholder “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure.
Claim 5 includes similar limitation, thus the same rationale applies.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/274404 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current claims 1 or 5-6 disclose every element of the copending application claims 1 and 13-14. Also, the current claims anticipate every element of the copending claims 1 and 13-14 (anticipation type rejection because the current claims 1 and 5-6 are narrower in scope than the copending claims 1 and 13-14).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-5 of copending Application No. 18274398 (hereinafter ‘398) in view of Amacker et al. (hereinafter Amacker) US 2022/0279052 A1.
Current application’s claims 1 and 5-6 teach most of copending application ‘398 claims 1 and 4-5.
Current application’s claims 1 and 5-6 do not expressly teach “and an instruction process for instructing, in a case where at least one connection included in the established connections has been broken, the at least one communication apparatus involved in the at least one broken connection to reestablish the at least one broken connection” of copending application ‘398 claims 1 and 4-5.
Amacker is analogous art because Amacker’s teachings are directed to resource-sharing mesh-networked mobile nodes (e.g., on-body computing devices). The mobile nodes are connected to each other through a mesh network and are capable for sharing computational resources to execute tasks originating from within the mesh network (¶0004). Amacker also teaches “and an instruction process for instructing, in a case where at least one connection included in the established connections has been broken, the at least one communication apparatus involved in the at least one broken connection to reestablish the at least one broken connection” (¶0054, ¶0097 & ¶0100; the connections are periodically monitored. If a node detects a change in mesh network conditions, the mobile nodes 110 re-investigate the mesh network to rebuild the mesh network. In some embodiments, the mobile nodes determine if one or more mesh network properties have degraded below a threshold. For example, nodes may determine whether a signal strength between two nodes in the mesh network (e.g., a follower node to commanding node connection, or a follower node to follower node connection) falls below a threshold amount… if a follower node 520 fails to receive a set number of beaconing messages, the follower node may determine that the follower node has lost connection to the commanding node, and the follower node may attempt to re-establish a connection to the mesh network by attempting to connect to another node the follower node is within range of).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Amacker into the system of copending application ‘398 in order to create a mesh network where the system automatically and periodically identify a hierarchy of signal strength with current nodes to re-establish the group of nodes if any one node failed. Id. Utilizing such teachings enable the system to maintain the mesh network with the nodes as configured. Id.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi US 2018/0206094 A1 in view of Itaya EP 3310122 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a communication system comprising a plurality of communication apparatuses configured to form a meshed network (¶0040 & Fig. 5; a node in a mesh network that supports a connection scheme), and a control apparatus that controls the plurality of communication apparatuses, the plurality of communication apparatuses each including: at least one communication unit that is configured to transmit and receive directional communication media (Fig. 2; user device 211, node A 213, B 215, C 217 and D 219);
and at least one first processor, the at least one first processor carrying out (¶0123 & Fig. 7; node 400 may be implemented with one processor):
a specification process for specifying at least one connection destination candidate by carrying out scanning with use of the at least one communication unit (Fig. 7 717 scan process. ¶0138; node A 711 is performing an advertisement process (operation 715), and the node B 713 is performing a scan process (operation 717));
and a connection establishment process for establishing connection with the at least one connection destination candidate specified by the specification process (Fig. 7 723 connection establishment. ¶0042; node which is performing a scan process transmits a Connect REQ message after receiving the advertisement message and then a connection is established),
the control apparatus including at least one second processor, the at least one second processor carrying out: a control process for controlling the plurality of communication apparatuses (Fig. 7 Node A 711. Fig. 2 a user device 211, a node A 213, B 215, C 217 and D 219. Also see ¶0123; node 400 is implemented with one processor),
in the control process, the at least one second processor carrying out a management process for managing, for each communication apparatus included in the meshed network (¶0141; node A 711 transmits to node B 713 a message that includes number of hops. Number of hops is similar to number of connections that is capable of being established. Choi also teaches Node A 811 collects information about nodes in the BLE mesh network based on Connetc_REQ message thereby a connection is established. This implies that the number of established connections is determined hence the acceptance of Connect_REQ message, see ¶0142-¶0155 & Figs. 7-8),
Choi does not expressly teach a number of connections that are permitted to be established, and a number of established connections.
Itaya teaches a number of connections that are permitted to be established (¶0075-¶0085; the control unit 140 determines whether a sum of the number N of other devices connected to the information processing apparatus 100 and the threshold M of the room for connection is equal to or smaller than the maximum connectable number of the information processing apparatus 100 (step S803),
and a number of established connections (same as above. Also see ¶0056; the room for connection to be left (threshold of room for connection) is M, and the number of devices with which the connections are newly established is L (where 1 ≤ L ≤ M). In this case, the connections with L information processing apparatuses selected in some way among existing connections need to be cut such that the room for connection is M if the L devices are newly connected).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Itaya into the system of Choi to establish connections up to the upper limit before determining the information processing apparatuses to be connected according to device-to-be-connected selection algorithm, so that the connections suitable for application can be achieved (¶0058).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein in the management process, for each communication apparatus included in the meshed network,
Choi does not expressly teach the at least one second processor updates at least one communication path included in the meshed network such that the number of established connections does not exceed a value obtained by subtracting 1 from a maximum number of connections that are permitted to be established.
Itaya teaches the at least one second processor updates at least one communication path included in the meshed network such that the number of established connections does not exceed a value obtained by subtracting 1 from a maximum number of connections that are permitted to be established (¶0072-¶0085, discloses leaving room for connection, where the room for connection, or M can be 1. Therefore, connecting max number of devices with room for connection of 1, max-1 to allow connection, after which, no devices are connected, or unusable state).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to include a value obtained by subtracting 1 of Itaya from the maximum number of connections in order to allow avoiding overload condition.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches the communication system according to claim 2, wherein in the management process,
Choi does not expressly teach the at least one second processor gives a plurality of communication paths included in the meshed network priority with reference to information related to a communication apparatus which is involved in each of the communication paths and included in the meshed network, and
disconnects a communication path with relatively low priority from among the plurality of communication paths included in the meshed network such that the number of established connections does not exceed a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the maximum number of connections that are permitted to be established.
Itaya teaches the at least one second processor gives a plurality of communication paths included in the meshed network priority with reference to information related to a communication apparatus which is involved in each of the communication paths and included in the meshed network (¶0102; the control unit 140 can disconnect a predetermined number of devices among the devices connected to the information processing apparatus 100, in a case where the request for connection to join the network is received so that the upper limit number of devices are connected to the wireless communication unit 120. See examples of setting priority connection devices in ¶0103-¶0116),
disconnects a communication path with relatively low priority from among the plurality of communication paths included in the meshed network (¶0102; the control unit 140 can disconnect a predetermined number of devices among the devices connected to the information processing apparatus 100, in a case where the request for connection to join the network is received so that the upper limit number of devices are connected to the wireless communication unit 120).
such that the number of established connections does not exceed a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the maximum number of connections that are permitted to be established (¶0072-¶0085, discloses leaving room for connection, where the room for connection, or M can be 1. Therefore, connecting max number of devices with room for connection of 1, max-1 to allow connection, after which, no devices are connected, or unusable state).
See above reasons for combining the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches the communication system according to claim 1, wherein in the management process,
Choi does not expressly teach, the at least one second processor gives an instruction to add an additional communication apparatus to the meshed network (¶0102; the control unit 140 can disconnect a predetermined number of devices among the devices connected to the information processing apparatus 100, in a case where the request for connection to join the network is received so that the upper limit number of devices are connected to the wireless communication unit 120. See examples of setting priority connection devices in ¶0103-¶0116),
such that the number of established connections does not exceed a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the maximum number of connections that are permitted to be established (¶0072-¶0085, discloses leaving room for connection, where the room for connection, or M can be 1. Therefore, connecting max number of devices with room for connection of 1, max-1 to allow connection, after which, no devices are connected, or unusable state).
See above reasons for combining the art.
Claims 5-6 are substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
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 MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights