DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 July 2026 has been entered.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15-16 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. US 2021/0409335 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhu”) in view of Thaweethai et al. US 5,546,379 (hereinafter referred to as “Thaweethai”). Note: Zhu was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 August 2025.
As to claim 1, Zhu teaches a method for wireless communication performed by a wireless communication device, comprising:
transmitting a first message over a wireless channel to a target device;
listening for a response from the target device following the transmission of the first message;
determining that the target device is unreachable based at least in part on listening for a threshold period without receiving the response from the target device (¶94: transmit a message and wait for a timer duration where a response is expected, after the timer timeout the target device is unreachable); and
refraining from retransmitting the first message to the target device while the target device is unreachable (¶94: retransmit message before timeout and stop retransmission after timeout and target device declared unreachable).
Although Zhu teaches “A method…the target device; and refraining from…is unreachable,” Zhu does not explicitly disclose “storing the first…from the transmission queue”.
However, Thaweethai teaches storing the first message in a transmission queue prior to transmitting the first message to the target device (cols 4 and 7: packet that needs to be routed to a remote network/device is queued); and
discarding the first message from the transmission queue responsive to determining that the target device is unreachable while the target device is unreachable (col 7: if the target device is unreachable, discard the packet from the queue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu by including “storing…unreachable” as taught by Thaweethai because it provides Zhu’s method with the enhanced capability of saving resources (Thaweethai, cols 4 and 7).
As to claim 2, Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein the response comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) message indicating that the first message has been successfully received by the target device (¶¶88, 84, and 96).
As to claim 3, Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein the determining that the target device is unreachable comprises:
performing a number (N) of retransmissions of the first message over the threshold period (¶¶88, 84, and 96).
As to claim 5, Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches the method of claim 1. Zhu further teaches further comprising:
receiving the first message from a host processor; and
notifying the host processor that the target device failed to receive the first message based on determining that the target device is unreachable (¶¶356-357).
As to claim 6, Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches the method of claim 5. Zhu further teaches the notification to the host processor includes an indication that the target device is unreachable (¶¶356-357).
As to claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Thaweethai as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Komandur et al. US 2003/0137948 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Komandur”). Note: Komandur was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 13 August 2025.
As to claim 9, Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Zhu in view of Thaweethai teaches “The method of claim 1,” Zhu in view of Thaweethai does not explicitly disclose “receiving a second…the second message”.
However, Komandur teaches receiving a second message over the wireless channel from the target device after determining that the target device is unreachable; and
determining that the target device is reachable responsive to receiving the second message (¶¶45 and 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu in view of Thaweethai by including “receiving…message” as taught by Komandur because it provides Zhu in view of Thaweethai’s method with the enhanced capability of removing excess transmission (Komandur, ¶¶45 and 64).
As to claim 10, Zhu in view of Thaweethai, and further in view of Komandur teaches the method of claim 9.
Komandur further teaches receiving, from a host processor, a third message for transmission to the target device; and
transmitting the third message to the target device based on determining that the target device is reachable (¶¶356-357).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Zhu in view of Thaweethai, and further in view of Komandur by including “receiving…reachable” as further taught by Komandur for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9 (Komandur, ¶¶45 and 64).
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 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:
Koskinen US 2021/0306929 A1 - DESTINATION SPECIFIC EGRESS LINK UNAVAILABILITY IN INTEGRATED ACCESS AND BACKHAUL (IAB)
Ganichev et al. US 9,419,855 B2 - Static Routes For Logical Routers
Manohar et al. US 2025/0047594 A1 - FALLBACK-AWARE POLICY-BASED ROUTING
Xu et al. US 2023/0049788 A1 - DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND DEVICE
Ogier et al. US 2022/0012320 A1 - Mobile Ad Hoc Extensions For The Internet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights