DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The instant application No. 18389108 has claims 1-20 are pending.
2 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “each entire in the routing table comprises a frequency, a link margin, and a connectivity direction.” Grammar mistake it’s not entire it’s supposed to be entry. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (Patent No. US 9,210,067 B1; hereinafter Agarwal) in view of Burton et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0258211 A1; hereinafter Burton).
Regarding Claim 1, 8 and 15, Agarwal disclose a high frequency (HF) system comprising: at least one processor in data communication with the at least one receiver (9,210,067-Col. 4 Lines 15-18, The receiver generally performs the reverse of this process by stripping headers at each layer as the packet moves from the lowest layer to the highest layer; Col. 5 Lines 2-3, network processor which executes instructions for processing packets; interpreted the processor is coupled to the receiver) and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to: (Col. 5 Lines 2-3, network processor which executes instructions for processing packets; Col. 3 Lines 6-10, computer system reads and executes the code and/or data stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer system perform the methods and processes embodied as data structures and code and stored within the computer-readable storage medium) receive one or more signals from other nodes in the mesh network via the at least one receiver; (Col. 3 Lines 28-32, The routers in the network can be coupled using wired or wireless communication channels to form an arbitrary mesh topology. Embodiments of the present invention are not limited to the topology, technology, or architecture of network 100; Col 3 Lines 64-65, In packet switched networks, nodes use packets to communicate with one another) receive control information via the one or more signals; and produce a routing table based on the control information. (Col. 13 Lines 7-16, A message can include one or more internal LSD entries. An internal LSD entry is associated with a link in the network. For example, a message can include internal LSD entries 502 and 504. Each internal LSD entry can include the following fields: entry type 506, state 508, port 510, and node identifier 512. Entry type 506 can indicate that this LSD entry is an internal LSD entry. State 508 can indicate the state of the link. Port 510 can specify the port which is associated with the link. Node identifier 512 can identify the node which is coupled with the link; Col. 7 Lines 8-10, Once the client completes processing of the full LSD update message, it can compute new routing tables based on the updated LSD)
However, Agarwal fails to disclose at least one Rydberg sensor is a receiver
Burton discloses Rydberg sensor is a receiver (20250258211 See ¶0037, The Rydberg-atom based RF receiver 110 is configured to detect the phase of each wireless phase-modulated signal transmitted by the signal transmitter 130 and therefore demodulate data encoded into a plurality of these phase-modulated signals.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify having a receiver receive signals to generate a table to include the receiver the receives signals is a Rydberg sensor. The motivation to combine is The Rydberg-atom based RF receiver array 210 therefore enables electrically passive detection of phase-modulated signals at multiple locations with the additional benefit of sharing the relatively expensive optical sources (See ¶0064).
Claim(s) 2,9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Burton and, further in view of Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0135111 A1; hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Agarwal in view of Burton fails to disclose the routing table comprises separate entries for transmit and receive.
Huang discloses the routing table comprises separate entries for transmit and receive. (20160135111-See ¶0031, he controller 110 sets the flow entries of the table 4 in the step 220. As shown in the table 4, the controller 110 adds an uplink flow entry and a downlink flow entry to the edge device 132)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify produces a routing table based on packets to include the routing table has uplink and downlink flow entries. The motivation to combine is to dynamically adjust the routing paths according to a real-time status of the network, so as to reduce a network congestion to improve a network performance (See ¶0005).
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Burton and, further in view of Bearden et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0086425 A1; hereinafter Bearden)
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Agarwal in view of Burton fails to disclose the routing table comprises both direct and indirect routing.
Bearden discloses the routing table comprises both direct and indirect routing. (20030086425-See ¶0129, t the route table is divided into direct and indirect route entries)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating routing tables based on packets to include the routing tables have both indirect and direct entries. The motivation to combine is to efficient rules that the router uses to determine where to route each incoming packet (based on the packet's destination address) (See ¶0129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vairavakkalai et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0351857 A1)-See ¶0005, Routers use routing protocols to exchange routing information. Routers often maintain the routing information in the form of one or more routing tables or other data structures. Routers may generate and maintain forwarding information in accordance with the routing information. The forwarding information associates network routes with specific forwarding next hops and corresponding interface ports of the router. The forwarding information may, in some examples, be a subset of the information contained within routing information. The process of generating the association of the interface ports with the next hops in forwarding information is generally referred to as route resolution.
Jen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0150001 A1)-See ¶0020, The central routing server 120 may use the communications and operational data collected from the routers 130 and/or antennae 140 to determine routing paths for current and/or future communications. For example, the central routing server 120 may generate one or more routing tables that include communications routing paths specific to each node of the plurality of nodes 100 that indicates the specific radio links or chain of links that a communication from a node will travel to arrive at its destination. For instance, in a mesh network formed by a plurality of nodes that includes nodes A-E and an Internet source (e.g., destination of communications from nodes A-E), the routing table generated by the central routing server 120 may provide that a communication initiated from node A travels the path A to C to E to Internet source and that a communication initiated at node D travels the path D to A to E to Internet source. Thus, the routing table can define a communications routing path for each of the nodes for transmitting a communication initiating from a specific node to the Internet source and vice versa (e.g., from the Internet source to a specific node).
Ramanathan et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0245424 A1)-See ¶0010, The transit decider may include a transit table that stores information representative of transit keys expected to be seen on the ad hoc network and a forwarding action actions associated with each those respective transit keys. The transit table generator may be capable of generating the transit control table as a function of a network topology of the ad hoc network. To this end, the transit table generator may include a link-state processor, and/or a distance-vector processor for generating a topology database storing nodes in the network and relationship data representative of a node's neighborhood relationship to another node. In other embodiments the system may include a gradient-flow processor for generating a gradient database storing nodes in the network and relationship data representative of a node's neighborhood relationship to another node, or optionally a sink-tree generator for generating a sink tree rooted at a destination for a source-destination pair in the network. The tables generator may be updated by an update processor for updating the transit table in response to a change in network topology.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJIS DAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-7817. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4:30.
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, Nicholas Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/Tejis Daya/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472