DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are rejected.
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
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-17 are now pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and claims have overcome all objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The cited prior art of the claim limitation “forwarding the packet uplink until the packet is forwarded to the access point” of claim 1, Ben-Yehezkel Figure 6 and [0026-0028], specifically discloses that the forwarding of packets in the uplink involves forwarding to a parent address (hierarchy), which is then repeated until the packet is received at the access point (one or more ancestors).
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 12-17 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the relay nodes" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-17 are rejected by the virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ben-Yehezkel et al. US 20160191259 A1, hereinafter Ben-Yehezkel.
Regarding Claim 12, Ben-Yehezkel discloses a mesh network system (see at least the mesh system of Fig. 6), comprising:
a station, configured to generate a packet, wherein a sending address of the packet is a MAC address of itself, and a receiving address of the packet is a MAC address of an access point (Figs. 6-7, [0024-0026]; Fig. 9, [0033] discloses that (in operation 900), MLN (i.e., the station) constructs an uplink frame and encrypts the frame using the access point address as the BSSID input for the encryption procedure; see also the prior art shown in Fig. 1); and further configured to change the receiving address of the packet to a MAC address of its parent node, and then send the packet (Figs. 6-7; Fig. 9, [0033] discloses that following the encryption procedure, the MLN sets the BSSID to its parent address and transmits the UL frame);
a relay node, configured to perform an uplink forwarding procedure after receiving the packet, wherein the uplink forwarding procedure comprises: transmitting an ACK frame (Figs. 6-7 and 9, [0025-0028] discloses UL communication with DL ACK. The mesh relay nodes (MRNs) each construct an ACK frame, and the ACK frame is transmitted directly or indirectly over the paths as shown in Fig. 6), changing the receiving address of the packet received to a MAC address of its parent node, and then forwarding the packet uplink; when the number of the relay nodes is multiple and hierarchically connected, each relay node executes the uplink forwarding procedure until the packet is forwarded to the access point (Fig. 6-7, and 9, [0026-0028] discloses that the MRNs change ADDR1 (BSSID) to its parent address and transmits or forwards the frame to its parent node. The UL transmission is repeated until the UL frame is received by the AP); and
the access point, configured to transmit an ACK frame after receiving the packet, parse the packet, and then determine that it receives data from the station based on the sending address of the packet (Figs. 6-7 and 9, [0028] discloses that the AP determines from the BSSID that it is the proper recipient, and the constructs an ACK frame where the receiving address is the MLN/station).
Regarding Claim 13, Ben-Yehezkel discloses the system of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the station is further configured to generate the packet and encrypt the packet (Figs. 6-7, [0024-0026]; Fig. 9, [0033] discloses that (in operation 900), MLN (i.e., the station) constructs an uplink frame and encrypts the frame using the access point address as the BSSID input for the encryption procedure).
Regarding Claim 15, Ben-Yehezkel discloses the system of claim 12 and further discloses wherein
the access point is further configured to send another packet, wherein a receiving address of the another packet is a MAC address of the station and a sending address of the another packet is the MAC address of the access point (Figs. 4-5, [0020-0021] discloses in path 1a, the destination address of the AP generated packet is pointing to MLN (i.e., station) and the parent address is pointing to the AP; Fig. 8);
the relay node is further configured to perform a downlink forwarding procedure, wherein the downlink forwarding procedure comprises: receiving the another packet based on the MAC address of the station contained in a refugee table stored in the relay node and the sending address of the another packet being a MAC address of its parent node, transmitting an ACK frame to its parent node, and then changing the sending address of the another packet to a MAC address of itself and forwarding the another packet downlink; the refugee table stored in the relay node contains MAC addresses of all descendant nodes that are provided with relay services by the relay node; when the number of the relay nodes is multiple and hierarchically connected, each relay node executes the downlink forwarding procedure until the another packet is forwarded to the station (Figs. 4-5 and 8, at least [0020-0023] discloses the downlink sequential path, traveling from the AP to the MLN (i.e., station). MRN1 determines at step 506 if ADDR1 (pointing to MLN) is a valid descendant address; the MRN changes ADDR2 to its own address and transmits or forwards the frame to at least one descendant node. The process is repeated until the DL frame is received by the MLN/station; the receiving relay node is able to determine if the ADDR1 (destination address) is a valid descendant address and if it points to a node that is registered as a descendant node);
the station is further configured to receive the another packet based on the sending address of the another packet being a MAC address of its parent node and the receiving address of the another packet being a MAC address of itself, transmit an ACK frame, change the sending address of the another packet received to the MAC address of the access point, and then determine that it receives data from the access point based on the sending address of the another packet (Figs. 4-5 and 8, [0023] discloses the DL frame received by the MLN. The ADDR2 (i.e., the sending address) is set to MRN2 (i.e., the parent node). The MLN determines that it is the final destination node by comparing ADDR1 to its own STA address; MLN constructs and transmits and ACK frame; the MLN decrypts the frame using the access point (AP) address as the BSSID input to the decryption process before processing the frame; see also Fig. 8: procedure 818).
Regarding Claim 16, Ben-Yehezkel discloses the system of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the access point is further configured to encrypt the another packet (see at least Fig. 8, [0030] AP 800 encrypts the frame using the AP address in the encryption procedure and transmits the DL frame).
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.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Yehezkel as applied to claims above, in view of Budampati et al. US 20100269005 A1, hereinafter Budampati.
Regarding Claim 14, Ben-Yehezkel discloses the system of claim 12 but fails to explicitly disclose the station is further configured to perform cyclic redundancy check algorithm calculation on the packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Budampati more specifically discloses the station is further configured to perform cyclic redundancy check algorithm calculation on the packet (Budampati at least Fig. 1 and [0025] discloses a wireless network. The infrastructure nodes (i.e., intermediate nodes for forwarding to the network) receives a transmitted data packet from a leaf node (i.e., station) and performs a CRC on the packet. If the packet is without errors, the I node then transmits an acknowledgment to the leaf node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ben-Yehezkel with the teachings of Budampati as the packet checking operation ensures the validity and correctness of the data packets in the data forwarding process between the station and the access point.
Regarding Claim 17, Ben-Yehezkel discloses the system of claim 15 but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the access point is further configured to perform cyclic redundancy check algorithm calculation on the another packet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Budampati more specifically discloses wherein the access point is further configured to perform cyclic redundancy check algorithm calculation on the another packet (Budampati at least Fig. 1 and [0025] discloses a wireless network. The infrastructure nodes (i.e., intermediate nodes for forwarding to the network) receives a transmitted data packet from a leaf node (i.e., station) and performs a CRC on the packet. If the packet is without errors, the I node then transmits an acknowledgment to the leaf node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ben-Yehezkel with the teachings of Budampati as the packet checking operation ensures the validity and correctness of the data packets in the data forwarding process between the station and the access point.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 7, and 12 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 10, and 13 of Application No. 18/338,564. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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, 7, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/338,564. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to the current claims 1, 7, and 12, the claims merely narrow the step of “sending, by a node to be paired, a pairing request packet to its parent node, wherein … a receiving address of the paring request packet is a MAC address of the parent node of the node to be paired” of the copending application by adding a step of “(A) … a receiving address of the packet is a MAC address of an access point … (B) changing the receiving address of the packet to a MAC address of its parent node by the station …” Further, the claims merely narrow the step of relaying/forwarding the pairing request packet of the copending application by adding a step of “transmitting an ACK frame by the relay node” or “transmitting an ACK frame [by the station] …”Although the copending application does not explicitly disclose the steps of the current claims 1, 7, and 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the executed step of transmitting the packet wherein the receiving address is a MAC address of its parent node (regardless of changing the receiving address from that of an access point to that of parent node) is the same, and the hierarchical relaying/forwarding of the pairing request within the mesh network is the same.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEWON KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, GARY MUI can be reached at (571)270-1420. 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.
/Y.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights