DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 8, Applicants write, “Fig. 3 example process.t.” It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “Fig. 3 example process.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, Applicants write, “determined by003A.” It is thought that Applicants meant to write, “determined by.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: there is a period in line 15 and the claim does not end until line 18. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). See MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. In line 7, it is unclear if Applicants meant to write “determining the second communication metric data for the first communication link” or it was meant to read “determined the second communication metric data for the second communication link” based on “communicating, via a second communication link between the first node and the second node, according to a second transmission scheme” in lines 4-5. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 12 is 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. In line 7, it is unclear if Applicants meant to write “determining the second communication metric data for the first communication link” or it was meant to read “determined the second communication metric data for the second communication link” based on “communicating, via a second communication link between the first node and the second node, according to a second transmission scheme” in lines 5-6. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim 18 is 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. In line 8, it is unclear if Applicants meant to write “determining the second communication metric data for the first communication link” or it was meant to read “determined the second communication metric data for the second communication link” based on “communicating, via a second communication link between the first node and the second node, according to a second transmission scheme” in lines 5-6. Appropriate correction or explanation 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johan et al. (U.S. 2005/0118959) in view of Jaeger et al. (U.S. 8,625,424) in view of Dhanabalan (U.S. 10,142,243) and further in view of Vera-Pérez et al. (“Path quality estimator for wireless sensor networks fast deployment tool”)).
Johan and Vera-Pérez were cited on the IDS filed 12 January 2024.
With respect to claim 2, Johan teaches a method, comprising: communicating via a communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46) between a first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and a second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46) according to a transmission scheme (Johan, page 3, paragraph 46); determining communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) for the communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46); and determining link quality data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 7-9) based at least in part on the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-9), wherein determining the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112); and updating (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) to obtain updated communication metric data (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) with at least the communication metric data as input (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5).
Johan does not explicitly teach the use of a protocol stack, a link layer, or a MAC layer.
However, Jaeger teaches messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); and at the link layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johan in view of Jaeger in order to enable messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack; to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; and at the link layer of the protocol stack. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a method for determining the optimal route between a node and a destination, or sink node (Jaeger, col. 1, lines 12-13 and 30-31).
The combination of Johan and Jaeger does not explicitly teach comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node.
However, Dhanabalan teaches comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 11-14); transmitting the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14); tracking transmission attempts (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) of the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14).
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 combination of Johan and Jaeger in view of Dhanabalan in order to enable comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable methods for selecting an optimal path or link from a plurality of links between devices. The link choice may be determined from latency, packet drop rates, jitter, congestion, or other characteristics of the external links. Link selection may further be based on traffic priority or transport layer quality of service (QoS) requirements of the connection, load balancing requirements, or other such features (Dhanabalan, col. 5, lines 21-28).
The combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan does not explicitly teach updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation.
However, Vera-Pérez teaches updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, lines 11-14).
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 combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan in view of Vera-Pérez in order to enable updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve stability (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, line 13).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 2, including the method wherein the communicating comprises: communicating, via a first communication link between (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55) the first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and the second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46), according to a first transmission scheme (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55); communicating, via a second communication link between (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56) the first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and the second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46), according to a second transmission scheme (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56); determining first communication metric data for the first communication link (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55); determining second communication metric data for the first communication link (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56); and determining link quality data based at least in part on the first communication metric data and the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 55 and 56).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 3, including the method wherein the link quality data is determined by: determining a first coefficient for (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54) a first modulation scheme (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55, lines 1-4) of a plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraph 57); determining a second coefficient (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56) for a second modulation scheme (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55, lines 4-6) of the plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraph 57); and determining the link quality data based at least in part on applying the first coefficient to (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54) the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55) and applying the second coefficient (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56) to the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 55 and 56).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 5, including the method wherein the link quality data is determined by: determining a third coefficient for a third modulation scheme of the plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57); determining a fourth coefficient for a fourth modulation scheme of the plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57); and determining second link quality data based at least in part on applying the third coefficient to third communication metric data and applying the fourth coefficient to fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54-57).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 6, including the method wherein the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) are determined based on measured metric values (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54-57).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 6, including the method wherein the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) include at least an indication of transmissions attempted (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements received (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 6, including the method wherein the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) include at least an expected transmission (ETX) metric (Vera-Pérez, page 3, 1st column, B. Expected transmission count, lines 11-29).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the invention described in claim 2, including the method further comprising making a routing selection (Jaeger, col. 7, line 55 – col. 8, line 6) based at least in part on the link quality data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 7-9).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 11, Johan teaches a network communication device comprising: a radio configured to communicate with a second network communication device; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the radio; and memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: communicating via a communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46) between a first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and a second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46) according to a transmission scheme (Johan, page 3, paragraph 46); determining communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) for the communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46); and determining link quality data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 7-9) based at least in part on the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-9), wherein determining the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112); and updating (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) to obtain updated communication metric data (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) with at least the communication metric data as input (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5).
Johan does not explicitly teach the use of a protocol stack, a link layer, or a MAC layer.
However, Jaeger teaches at a link layer of a protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); and at the link layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johan in view of Jaeger in order to enable messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack; to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; and at the link layer of the protocol stack. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a method for determining the optimal route between a node and a destination, or sink node (Jaeger, col. 1, lines 12-13 and 30-31).
The combination of Johan and Jaeger does not explicitly teach comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node.
However, Dhanabalan teaches processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 11-14); transmitting the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14); tracking transmission attempts (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) of the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14).
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 combination of Johan and Jaeger in view of Dhanabalan in order to enable comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable methods for selecting an optimal path or link from a plurality of links between devices. The link choice may be determined from latency, packet drop rates, jitter, congestion, or other characteristics of the external links. Link selection may further be based on traffic priority or transport layer quality of service (QoS) requirements of the connection, load balancing requirements, or other such features (Dhanabalan, col. 5, lines 21-28).
The combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan does not explicitly teach updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation.
However, Vera-Pérez teaches updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, lines 11-14).
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 combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan in view of Vera-Pérez in order to enable updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve stability (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, line 13).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez teaches the network communication device of claim 14, wherein the link quality data is determined by determining a third coefficient for a third modulation scheme of the plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57); determining a fourth coefficient for a fourth modulation scheme of the plurality of different modulation schemes (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57); and determining second link quality data based at least in part on applying the third coefficient to third communication metric data and applying the fourth coefficient to fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54-57), wherein: the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) are determined based on measured metric values (Johan, page 4, paragraph 54-57), the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) include at least an indication of transmissions attempted (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements received (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16), and the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55), the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56), the third communication metric data, and the fourth communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 54-57) include at least an expected transmission (ETX) metric (Vera-Pérez, page 3, 1st column, B. Expected transmission count, lines 11-29).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 11 above.
With respect to claim 17, Johan teaches a network communication device comprising: a radio configured to communicate with a second network communication device; one or more processors coupled to the radio; and memory communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: communicating via a communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46) between a first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and a second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46) according to a transmission scheme (Johan, page 3, paragraph 46); determining communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) for the communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46); and determining link quality data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 7-9) based at least in part on the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-9), wherein determining the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112); and updating (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) to obtain updated communication metric data (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) with at least the communication metric data as input (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5).
Johan does not explicitly teach the use of a protocol stack, a link layer, or a MAC layer.
However, Jaeger teaches at a link layer of a protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); and at the link layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johan in view of Jaeger in order to enable messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack; to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; and at the link layer of the protocol stack. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a method for determining the optimal route between a node and a destination, or sink node (Jaeger, col. 1, lines 12-13 and 30-31).
The combination of Johan and Jaeger does not explicitly teach comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node.
However, Dhanabalan teaches comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 11-14); transmitting the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14); tracking transmission attempts (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) of the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14).
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 combination of Johan and Jaeger in view of Dhanabalan in order to enable comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable methods for selecting an optimal path or link from a plurality of links between devices. The link choice may be determined from latency, packet drop rates, jitter, congestion, or other characteristics of the external links. Link selection may further be based on traffic priority or transport layer quality of service (QoS) requirements of the connection, load balancing requirements, or other such features (Dhanabalan, col. 5, lines 21-28).
The combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan does not explicitly teach updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation.
However, Vera-Pérez teaches updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, lines 11-14).
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 combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan in view of Vera-Pérez in order to enable updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve stability (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, line 13).
Claims 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 21 do not teach or define any new limitations above claims 3 and 5-10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johan in view of Jaeger in view of Dhanabalan in view of in view of Vera-Pérez et al. and further in view of Won et al. (U.S. 2013/0042278).
With respect to claim 4, Johan teaches the invention described in claim 3, including a method, comprising: communicating via a communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46) between a first node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 100; page 3, paragraph 46) and a second node (Johan, Fig. 1, element 400; page 3, paragraph 46) according to a transmission scheme (Johan, page 3, paragraph 46); determining communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) for the communication link (Johan, Fig. 1, element 410; page 3, paragraph 46); and determining link quality data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 7-9) based at least in part on the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-9), wherein determining the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112); updating (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) the communication metric data (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5) to obtain updated communication metric data (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47) with at least the communication metric data as input (Johan, Fig. 9, element S1; page 8, paragraph 112, lines 3-5); determining which of the first communication link (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55) or the second communication link (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56) to use (Johan, page 4, paragraph 55); to obtain the updated communication metric data (Johan, page 3, paragraph 47), the updated communication metric data comprising a first updated communication metric data from the first communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraphs 53-55) and a second updated communication metric data from the second communication metric data (Johan, page 4, paragraph 56).
Johan does not explicitly teach the use of a protocol stack, a link layer, or a MAC layer.
However, Jaeger teaches messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the MAC layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); at the link layer of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47); and of the protocol stack (Jaeger, col. 27, lines 43-47),.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johan in view of Jaeger in order to enable messages being sent at a link layer of a protocol stack; to a medium access control (MAC) layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; at the MAC layer of the protocol stack; at the link layer of the protocol stack; and of the protocol stack. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable a method for determining the optimal route between a node and a destination, or sink node (Jaeger, col. 1, lines 12-13 and 30-31).
The combination of Johan and Jaeger does not explicitly teach comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node.
However, Dhanabalan teaches comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 11-14); transmitting the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14); tracking transmission attempts (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 2-7) and acknowledgements (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) of the PDUs between (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-16) the first node (Dhanabalan, Fig. 5B, elements 545 and 548; col. 61, lines 9-13) and the second node (Dhanabalan, col. 61, lines 9-14).
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 combination of Johan and Jaeger in view of Dhanabalan in order to enable comprises: processing protocol data units (PDUs) and outputting processed PDUs; transmitting the PDUs between the first node and the second node; tracking transmission attempts and acknowledgements of the PDUs between the first node and the second node. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable methods for selecting an optimal path or link from a plurality of links between devices. The link choice may be determined from latency, packet drop rates, jitter, congestion, or other characteristics of the external links. Link selection may further be based on traffic priority or transport layer quality of service (QoS) requirements of the connection, load balancing requirements, or other such features (Dhanabalan, col. 5, lines 21-28).
The combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan does not explicitly teach updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation; and based at least in part on executing a Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF).
However, Vera-Pérez teaches updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, lines 11-14); and based at least in part on executing a Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF) (Vera-Pérez, page 1, 2nd column, II. Related Work, lines 23 – page 2, 1st column, line 8).
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 combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan in view of Vera-Pérez in order to enable updating an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) calculation; and based at least in part on executing a Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF). One would be motivated to do so in order to improve stability (Vera-Pérez, page 2, 2nd column, line 13).
The combination of Johan, Jaeger, and Dhanabalan does not teach the method further comprising, at a network layer.
However, Won teaches the method further comprising, at a network layer (Won, page 1, paragraph 15).
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 combination of Johan, Jaeger, Dhanabalan, and Vera-Pérez in view of Won in order to enable the method further comprising, at a network layer. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase redundancy to increase coding rates as packet loss increases (Won, page 1, paragraph 7).
Claims 13 and 19 do not teach or define any new limitations above claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied, web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
February 10, 2026