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 § 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) 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jen et al. (US 2018/0295529).
- In reference to claim 1
Jen et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a server (e.g. central routing server 120; Fig. 1, par. 0011) from one of a plurality of nodes (e.g. nodes 110; Fig. 1 par. 0011) that comprise a mesh network (e.g. mesh network, Fig. 1, par. 0012-0013), characteristics for each of the plurality of nodes (e.g. data regarding operational attributes of the nodes and/or data relating to operation attributes of radio communication link; par. 0016)
determining, by the server and based on the characteristics, a relay path for providing data from a source node (e.g. Node D; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes to a destination node (e.g. Node E; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes, the relay path (e.g. relay path comprising Node D to Node A to Node E; 0017) comprising the source node, the destination node and at least one relay node (e.g. Node A; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes; and
providing, by the server, an indication of the relay path to at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node. (e.g. providing routing tables to the plurality of nodes including for example Node D, Node A, and Node E; par. 0017-0018, 0020)
- In reference to claim 2, 9, 16
Jen et al. further teaches wherein the at least one relay node (e.g. Node A; Fig. 1 par. 0047) is configured to transmit and receive the data via a Wi-Fi-based communication protocol (e.g. Wi-Fi; par. 0023) and is unassociated with an access point (e.g. Node A is not associated with an access point; Fig. 1, par. 0023).
- In reference to claim 8
Jen et al. teaches a system (e.g. central routing server 120; Fig. 1, par. 0011) for relaying data in a mesh network (e.g. mesh network; Fig. 1 par. 0012-013), comprising: one or more memories (e.g. memory; par. 0062); and at least one processor (e.g. processor; par. 0062) each coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a server (e.g. central routing server 120; Fig. 1, par. 0011) from one of a plurality of nodes (e.g. nodes 110; Fig. 1 par. 0011) that comprise a mesh network (e.g. mesh network, Fig. 1, par. 0012-0013), characteristics for each of the plurality of nodes (e.g. data regarding operational attributes of the nodes and/or data relating to operation attributes of radio communication link; par. 0016)
determining, by the server and based on the characteristics, a relay path for providing data from a source node (e.g. Node D; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes to a destination node (e.g. Node E; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes, the relay path (e.g. relay path comprising Node D to Node A to Node E; 0017) comprising the source node, the destination node and at least one relay node (e.g. Node A; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes; and
providing, by the server, an indication of the relay path to at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node. (e.g. providing routing tables to the plurality of nodes including for example Node D, Node A, and Node E; par. 0017-0018, 0020)
- In reference to claim 15
Jen et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g. memory, par. 0062) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device (e.g. central routing server 120; Fig. 1, par. 0011), cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a server (e.g. central routing server 120; Fig. 1, par. 0011) from one of a plurality of nodes (e.g. nodes 110; Fig. 1 par. 0011) that comprise a mesh network (e.g. mesh network, Fig. 1, par. 0012-0013), characteristics for each of the plurality of nodes (e.g. data regarding operational attributes of the nodes and/or data relating to operation attributes of radio communication link; par. 0016)
determining, by the server and based on the characteristics, a relay path for providing data from a source node (e.g. Node D; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes to a destination node (e.g. Node E; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes, the relay path (e.g. relay path comprising Node D to Node A to Node E; 0017) comprising the source node, the destination node and at least one relay node (e.g. Node A; par. 0017) from the plurality of nodes; and
providing, by the server, an indication of the relay path to at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node. (e.g. providing routing tables to the plurality of nodes including for example Node D, Node A, and Node E; par. 0017-0018, 0020)
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) 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen et al. (US 2018/0295529) in view of Kharvar et al. (US 2020/0288373).
- In reference to claim 3, 10, 17
Jen et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Jen et al. does not teach at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node comprises at least one of: an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device; a television; a sound bar; a computing device; an appliance; or a smart phone.
Kharvar et al. further teaches at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node comprises at least one of: an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device; a television (e.g. TV; par. 0027); a sound bar; a computing device (e.g. notebook computer; par. 0026); an appliance; or a smart phone.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the source node, the destination node, or the at least one relay node of Jen et al. to comprise an Internet-of-Things (IoT) device; a television; a sound bar; a computing device; an appliance; or a smart phone as suggested by Kharvar et al. because it would provide for an network device in a home such as a TV or notebook computer to participate in the mesh network and extend coverage of the mesh network by routing data to connected devices through the mesh network.
- In reference to claim 7, 14
Jen et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Jen et al. does not teach wherein the indication of the relay path comprises at least one of: a first identifier of a first node from the plurality of nodes in the relay path from which the at least one relay node receives the data; or a second identifier of a second node from the plurality of nodes in the relay path to which the data is to be transmitted by at the least one relay node.
Kharvar et al. further teaches wherein the indication of the relay path comprises at least one of: a first identifier of a first node (e.g. source address of source node; par. 0051) from the plurality of nodes in the relay path from which the at least one relay node receives the data; or a second identifier of a second node (e.g. destination address of destination node; par. 0051) from the plurality of nodes in the relay path to which the data is to be transmitted by at the least one relay node.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the indication of the relay path of Jen et al. to comprise a first identifier of a first node from the plurality of nodes in the relay path from which the at least one relay node receives the data; or a second identifier of a second node from the plurality of nodes in the relay path to which the data is to be transmitted by at the least one relay node as suggested by Kharvar et al. because it would provide for source address of the source node and a destination address of the destination node to utilize for routing data via the mesh network.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen et al. (US 2018/0295529) in view of SASAKI et al. (US 2022/0103420).
- In reference to claim 4, 11, 18
Jen et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Jen et al. does not teach wherein determining the relay path comprises: providing a representation of the characteristics to a machine learning-based classification model; and receiving an output generated by the machine learning-based classification model that corresponds to the indication of the relay path.
SASAKI et al. teaches providing a representation of a characteristics to a machine learning-based classification model (e.g. reception part 111 provides representation of characteristics to an analysis part 112 that includes a classification model created by machine learning; par. 0057-0058); and receiving an output generated by the machine learning-based classification model (e.g. output part receives an output generated by the an analysis part 112 that includes a classification model created by machine learning; par. 0057-0058).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determining the relay path of Jen et al. to include providing a representation of the characteristics to a machine learning-based classification model; and receiving an output generated by the machine learning-based classification model as suggested by SASAKI et al. that corresponds to the indication of the relay path because it would allow the analysis of datasets to find patterns in order to improve efficiency and reduce cost when selecting the relay path.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen et al. (US 2018/0295529) in view of Floberg et al. (US 2016/0242099).
- In reference to claim 5, 12, 19
Jen et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. While Jen et al. teaches the characteristics comprise a parameter (e.g. signal strength; par. 0022) with respect to one or more other nodes in the plurality of nodes (par. 0022); Jen et al. does not explicitly teach the parameter being a received signal strength.
Floberg et al. teaches utilizing a received signal strength. (par. 0012)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter of Jen et al. to be a received signal strength as suggested by Floberg et al. because it would allow the parameter to be represented as an absolute power level in dBm with respect to one or more other nodes in the plurality of nodes.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jen et al. (US 2018/0295529) in view of Lio et al. (US 2009/0268718).
- In reference to claim 6, 13, 20
Jen et al. teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Jen et al. does not teach the at least one relay node comprises a first access point and a second access point communicatively coupled via the Internet.
Lio et al. teaches a first access point and a second access point communicatively coupled via the Internet. (Fig. 1, par. 0014)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one relay node of Jen et al. to comprise a first access point and a second access point communicatively coupled via the Internet as suggested by Lio et al. because it would allow a source device connected to a first access point to communicate with a destination device connected to a second access point via the Internet connecting the access points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 at (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