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 .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-10, 12-13
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1-3, 5, 7-8
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 11
The following claim(s) is/are new: 13
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Previous Rejections Withdrawn
The 35 USC 101 rejection to claim(s) 11 is/are withdrawn based on the amendment.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim(s) 1-12 is/are withdrawn based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 5/22/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is representative and claims “M, with M>1” and “N, with N>1,” there is no support for the features.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 depends from Claim 1 and makes the limitations of Claim 1 conditional, which broadens the scope. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2016/0127515).
With respect to Claim 1, Kim teaches a method for controlling and switching a version of firmware for access to a communication network that has a logical topology in the form of a tree of node devices and is implemented on an electrical supply network, the communication network comprising a concentrator device, (Fig. 1, paras. 29-35; power distribution system with PLC gateways that communicate. A plurality of gateways are connected to a data concentrator, with multiple concentrators being connected to a control center, which is a tree system. Para. 82; software that uses the protocol for the network. para. 97; disclosure may be implemented in firmware. Applicant also admits a communication network with a tree topology in an electrical supply network with a data concentrator device, see Spec, pg. 1.)
the method being implemented by a node device comprising electronic circuitry (para. 36-37; PLC gateway includes circuitry such as a microprocessor.)
and the method comprising a second phase comprising the following steps: triggering a second time delay, and checking the reception, during the second time delay, of network management frames of the “beacon” type sent by the concentrator device or by another node device, (Fig. 6, paras. 62-68; devices communicate over periods of time called frames. During a contention free period the base nodes broadcast beacons at fixed intervals. Para. 71; a node needs to know the format of a frame in order to communicate with the network. paras. 74-81; to detect what version of the network, the device uses a network detection period during which it searches and parses beacons to determine what type of beacons they are.)
and/or of network management frames of the “promotion request” type sent by another node device, the network management frames comprising information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device; if a first predetermined number M, with M>1, of network management frames of the “beacon” type received and/or a second predetermined number N, with N>1, of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received comprise information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device that is not implemented by the version of the firmware used by the node device, then switching the node device into another version of the firmware that implements the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by the relay device; if a number of network management frames of the “beacon” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the first predetermined number M and a number of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the second predetermined number N, then reiterating the second phase; (These limitations are contingent upon receiving a network management frame. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim that contains contingent limitations does not include the elements that require a non-necessary condition precedent. Consequently, these features are not limiting on the broadest reasonable interpretation and need not be taught. See MPEP 2111.04.)
if no network management frame is received, then switching into another version of the firmware. (para. 72; device knows what network it is without using management frame. Para. 74, 82-84; device operates in R1.3.6 or R1.4 mode. Examiner asserts that this anticipates switching even if no management frame is received. Regardless, Examiner finds that (1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch when a system administrator manually configures what network it will be connected to in order to correctly interpret packets and register with the network, see para. 71, and (2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch into another version of the firmware because there are a finite number of firmware versions that the device is capable of using, and it would have been obvious to cycle through them in an attempt to discover what protocol version the network is using in order to allow access to the network. The art understood the problem, (see para. 71; “The node need to know which network it is connected to in order to correctly interpret the frame packets and to register with the network), there is a finite number of solutions, (para. 28; PRIME 1.3.6 or PRIME 1.4, para. 85; device manufactured with supported protocols. Further, specifications of networks are generally known for standardization and interoperability reasons, see paras. 9-12; open standards.) and the ability to switch versions was enabled in the art, see para. 74, 82-84. Consequently, blind switching was obvious. Either rationale renders the feature obvious.)
With respect to Claims 2-6, the additional limitations modify contingent features, and therefore do not affect the broadest reasonable scope of the claims. They are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein, during the second phase, if no management frame is received, then the node device switches into another version of the firmware that implements the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device. (para. 72; device knows what network it is without using management frame. Para. 74, 82-84; device operates in R1.3.6 or R1.4 mode. Examiner asserts that this anticipates switching even if no management frame is received. Regardless, Examiner finds that (1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch when a system administrator manually configures what network it will be connected to in order to correctly interpret packets and register with the network, see para. 71, and (2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch into another version of the firmware because there are a finite number of firmware versions that the device is capable of using, and it would have been obvious to cycle through them in an attempt to discover what protocol version the network is using in order to allow access to the network. The art understood the problem, (see para. 71; “The node need to know which network it is connected to in order to correctly interpret the frame packets and to register with the network), there is a finite number of solutions, (para. 28; PRIME 1.3.6 or PRIME 1.4, para. 85; device manufactured with supported protocols. Further, specifications of networks are generally known for standardization and interoperability reasons, see paras. 9-12; open standards.) and the ability to switch versions was enabled in the art, see para. 74, 82-84. Consequently, blind switching was obvious. Either rationale renders the feature obvious.)
With respect to Claim 8, modified Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, and Kim also teaches comprising a prior step of initialising the first time delay and the second time delay, according to predetermined values. (Fig. 6, paras. 62-68; devices communicate over periods of time called frames. During a contention free period the base nodes broadcast beacons at fixed intervals. Para. 71; a node needs to know the format of a frame in order to communicate with the network. paras. 74-81; to detect what version of the network, the device uses a network detection period during which it searches and parses beacons to determine what type of beacons they are.)
With respect to Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein the step consisting in checking the reception, during the second time delay, of network management frames is performed by checking the reception of network management frames sent by a plurality of devices of the communication network. (para. 68; base node and switch nodes broadcast beacons.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2016/0127515) in view of Vedantham (US Pub. 2014/0056369).
With respect to Claim 13, Kim teaches a method for controlling and switching a version of firmware for access to a communication network that has a logical topology in the form of a tree of node devices and is implemented on an electrical supply network, the communication network comprising a concentrator device, (Fig. 1, paras. 29-35; power distribution system with PLC gateways that communicate. A plurality of gateways are connected to a data concentrator, with multiple concentrators being connected to a control center, which is a tree system. Para. 82; software that uses the protocol for the network. para. 97; disclosure may be implemented in firmware. Applicant also admits a communication network with a tree topology in an electrical supply network with a data concentrator device, see Spec, pg. 1.)
the method being implemented by a node device comprising electronic circuitry (para. 36-37; PLC gateway includes circuitry such as a microprocessor.)
and the method comprising a first phase comprising the following steps: triggering a first time delay and checking the reception, during the first time delay, of a frame of any type making it possible to identify a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device; (Fig. 6, paras. 62-68; devices communicate over periods of time called frames. During a contention free period the base nodes broadcast beacons at fixed intervals. Para. 71; a node needs to know the format of a frame in order to communicate with the network. paras. 74-81; to detect what version of the network, the device uses a network detection period during which it searches and parses beacons to determine what type of beacons they are. See also Vedantham, para. 54; periodically listening to check for beacons, which is a time delay.)
and otherwise triggering said second phase; a second phase comprising the following steps: triggering a second time delay, and checking the reception, during the second time delay, of network management frames of the “beacon” type sent by the concentrator device or by another node device, and/or of network management frames of the “promotion request” type sent by another node device, the network management frames comprising information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device; if a first predetermined number M, with M>1, of network management frames of the “beacon” type received and/or a second predetermined number N, with N>1, of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received comprise information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device that is not implemented by the version of the firmware used by the node device, then switching the node device into another version of the firmware that implements the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by the relay device; if a number of network management frames of the “beacon” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the first predetermined number M and a number of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the second predetermined number N, then reiterating the second phase; if no network management frame is received, then switching into another version of the firmware. (These limitations are contingent upon the first phase ending in a certain fashion. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim that contains contingent limitations does not include the elements that require a non-necessary condition precedent. Consequently, these features are not limiting on the broadest reasonable interpretation and need not be taught. See MPEP 2111.04.)
But Kim does not explicitly teach reiteration.
Vedantham, however, does teach if the version of the firmware used by the node device is implementing the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device, then reiterating the first phase, (First see Kim, paras. 82-85; system selects software to execute in the appropriate mode. Device then registers. Examiner notes that the beacon broadcast is periodic, and therefore if the device in Kim ever lost registration or moved to another network it would reiterate the phase. See also paras. 5, 77; change of operating environment and determining if there is a different base node and therefore a different network, both of which suggest an iteration to register to a changed network. However, since that is implicit rather than inherent and obviousness is necessary regardless, Examiner will additionally cite Vedantham, para. 54; each node periodically listens to detect beacons.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Kim with the reiteration of the first phase in order to verify that the node is connected to a network that is still using the selected protocol.
Alternate Grounds
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub. 2016/0127515).
With respect to Claim 1, Kim teaches a method for controlling and switching a version of firmware for access to a communication network that has a logical topology in the form of a tree of node devices and is implemented on an electrical supply network, the communication network comprising a concentrator device, (Fig. 1, paras. 29-35; power distribution system with PLC gateways that communicate. A plurality of gateways are connected to a data concentrator, with multiple concentrators being connected to a control center, which is a tree system. Para. 82; software that uses the protocol for the network. para. 97; disclosure may be implemented in firmware. Applicant also admits a communication network with a tree topology in an electrical supply network with a data concentrator device, see Spec, pg. 1.)
the method being implemented by a node device comprising electronic circuitry (para. 36-37; PLC gateway includes circuitry such as a microprocessor.)
and the method comprising a second phase comprising the following steps: triggering a second time delay, and checking the reception, during the second time delay, of network management frames of the “beacon” type sent by the concentrator device or by another node device, and/or of network management frames of the “promotion request” type sent by another node device, (Fig. 6, paras. 62-68; devices communicate over periods of time called frames. During a contention free period the base nodes broadcast beacons at fixed intervals. Para. 71; a node needs to know the format of a frame in order to communicate with the network. paras. 74-81; to detect what version of the network, the device uses a network detection period during which it searches and parses beacons to determine what type of beacons they are.)
the network management frames comprising information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device; (Paras. 75-78; by parsing particular bytes or even particular bits, the system can determine what type of beacon is being transmitted.)
if a first predetermined number M, with M>1, of network management frames of the “beacon” type received and/or a second predetermined number N, with N>1, of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received comprise information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device that is not implemented by the version of the firmware used by the node device, (para. 75; system may parse multiple beacons. paras. 79-81; system receives multiple beacons and determines network type from them.)
then switching the node device into another version of the firmware that implements the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by the relay device; (para. 82-84; device selects PRIME specification mode.)
if a number of network management frames of the “beacon” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the first predetermined number M and a number of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the second predetermined number N, then reiterating the second phase; (This limitation is contingent and therefore not limiting. Regardless, Kim teaches. para. 75; system may parse multiple beacons over two superframe periods. paras. 79-81; system receives multiple beacons and determines network type from them.)
if no network management frame is received, then switching into another version of the firmware. (This limitation is contingent and therefore not limiting. Regardless, Kim teaches. para. 72; device knows what network it is without using management frame. Para. 74, 82-84; device operates in R1.3.6 or R1.4 mode. Examiner asserts that this anticipates switching even if no management frame is received. Regardless, Examiner finds that (1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch when a system administrator manually configures what network it will be connected to in order to correctly interpret packets and register with the network, see para. 71, and (2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch into another version of the firmware because there are a finite number of firmware versions that the device is capable of using, and it would have been obvious to cycle through them in an attempt to discover what protocol version the network is using in order to allow access to the network. The art understood the problem, (see para. 71; “The node need to know which network it is connected to in order to correctly interpret the frame packets and to register with the network), there is a finite number of solutions, (para. 28; PRIME 1.3.6 or PRIME 1.4, para. 85; device manufactured with supported protocols. Further, specifications of networks are generally known for standardization and interoperability reasons, see paras. 9-12; open standards.) and the ability to switch versions was enabled in the art, see para. 74, 82-84. Consequently, blind switching was obvious. Either rationale renders the feature obvious.)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein each network management frame comprises a bit field the value of which indicates the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device and/or another node device. (paras. 74-77; bit fields used to identify which version is being used.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Kim teaches the method of Claim 2, and Kim also teaches wherein the network management frames received that are of the “beacon” type are predefined time slots of frames transmitted in the computer network and enable all the node devices to synchronise with the concentrator device. (para. 62-65, 68; beacons transmitted in super frame, with a prescribed frequency in particular start and end times. Para. 50; frames used for synchronization.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 3, and Kim also teaches wherein the bit field is a result of a cyclic redundancy check the value of which indicates the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device and/or another node device. (para. 51; a CRC is a checksum for the frame. Figs. 8-9, paras. 76-78; Different version beacons store different data of different lengths.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 2, and Kim also teaches wherein the network management frames that are of the “promotion request” type are predefined time slots of frames transmitted in the communication network and enable the concentrator device to change a node device into a relay device. (paras. 68-69; Promotion request to make a switch node. Para. 68, 77; switch node sends beacon. Para. 62; Base node grants permission to transmit to nodes.)
With respect to Claim 7, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein, during the second phase, if no management frame is received, then the node device switches into another version of the firmware that implements the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device. (para. 72; device knows what network it is without using management frame. Para. 74, 83-84; device operates in R1.3.6 or R1.4 mode. Examiner asserts that this anticipates switching even if no management frame is received. Regardless, Examiner finds that (1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch when a system administrator manually configures what network it will be connected to in order to correctly interpret packets and register with the network, see para. 71, and (2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to switch into another version of the firmware because there are a finite number of firmware versions that the device is capable of using, and it would have been obvious to cycle through them in an attempt to discover what protocol version the network is using in order to allow access to the network. The art understood the problem, (see para. 71; “The node need to know which network it is connected to in order to correctly interpret the frame packets and to register with the network), there is a finite number of solutions, (para. 28; PRIME 1.3.6 or PRIME 1.4, para. 85; device manufactured with supported protocols. Further, specifications of networks are generally known for standardization and interoperability reasons, see paras. 9-12; open standards.) and the ability to switch versions was enabled in the art, see para. 74, 83-84. Consequently, blind switching was obvious. Either rationale renders the feature obvious.)
With respect to Claim 8, modified Kim teaches the method according to claim 1, and Kim also teaches comprising a prior step of initialising the first time delay and the second time delay, according to predetermined values. (Fig. 6, paras. 62-68; devices communicate over periods of time called frames. During a contention free period the base nodes broadcast beacons at fixed intervals. Para. 71; a node needs to know the format of a frame in order to communicate with the network. paras. 74-81; to detect what version of the network, the device uses a network detection period during which it searches and parses beacons to determine what type of beacons they are. See also Vedantham, para. 54; periodically listening to check for beacons, which is a time delay.)
With respect to Claim 9, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1, and Kim also teaches wherein the step consisting in checking the reception, during the second time delay, of network management frames is performed by checking the reception of network management frames sent by a plurality of devices of the communication network. (para. 68; base node and switch nodes broadcast beacons.)
With respect to Claim 10, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1 and Kim also teaches a node device comprising electronic circuitry for executing the method according to Claim 1. (para. 86; processor in integrated circuit for a PRIME 1.3.6 and R1.4 compatible device.)
With respect to Claim 12, modified Kim teaches the method according to Claim 1 and Kim also teaches a node device comprising electronic circuitry for executing the method according to Claim 1. (para. 86; processor in integrated circuit for a PRIME 1.3.6 and R1.4 compatible device.)
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 5-6 that the amendments fix all previous 101 and 112b rejections. Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejections.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 7-9 that the amended claims are all nonobvious. Applicant highlights the following: (1) Applicant has moved the first phase from Claim 1 to a dependent Claim 13, and Claim 1 is now focused entirely on the second phase, and (2) relying on the reasoning in Examiner’s previous Remarks (Non-Final, pgs. 8-9), Applicant amends to a M>1 and N>1 situation which “operates in a fundamentally different manner from Kim.”
Examiner will now reject Claims 1-10, 12 over Kim and Claim 13 over Kim/Vedantham. In addition, all Claims are rejected under 112a and Claim 13 is rejected under 112d. Examiner will break the claimset into three groupings of claims which are similarly situated and deal with each in turn: Claim 13, Claims 1-9, and Claims 10/12.
Examiner begins with Claim 13. Applicant does not argue Claim 13, and Examiner assumes that Applicant relies upon the fact that Claim 1 is nonobvious, and therefore Claim 13, which depends from it, is nonobvious, see Remarks, pg. 9. (“The dependent method claims 2-9 and 13 further limit Claim 1 and are therefore also allowable.”) Normally, Applicant’s logic would be correct – if Claim 1 is nonobvious and Claim 13 depended from Claim 1, then Claim 13 would also be nonobvious. The problem is that Claim 13 is not a proper dependent claim, so the logic collapses. Claim 1 previously had a first phase, and a conditional second phase. The second phase as previously presented was nonobvious. As will be explained in the following section, the amended Claim 1 is not nonobvious, but that is largely irrelevant to Claim 13. Amended Claim 1 strikes the first phase and the conditional trigger. New Claim 13 reintroduces the first phase language that was struck from Claim 1. The sum subject matter of Claim 13 therefore makes the second phase conditional again, because amended Claim 13 comprises a first phase that again contains the branching conditional “if the version of the firmware used by the node device is implementing the version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device, then reiterating the first phase, and otherwise triggering said second phase.” Applicant does not dispute Examiner’s previous logic from the Non-Final that this same language rendered the second phase conditional.
In other words, the fact that Claim 13 is nominated a dependent claim of Claim 1 does not change the fact that the words of Claim 13 render the second phase of Claim 1 possibly not limiting on the claim scope. MPEP 608.01(n)(III) has an explicit example covering just this situation: “the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C and D, a claim reciting the structure of Claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim.” Here Claim 1 requires a host of method steps that must occur during a second phase, and Claim 13 does not require the second phase to occur, which means Claim 13 can be infringed by actions that would not infringe Claim 1. Consequently, Claim 13 is obvious under 103 for the same reasons that original Claim 1 was obvious, and additionally Claim 13 is rejected under 112d because the manner in which Claim 13 achieves the original Claim 1 scope is by “focusing entirely” on the second phase in Claim 1, and then omitting those limitations with Claim 13 language.
Examiner now turns to amended Claims 1-9. Examiner highlights two changes made to Claim 1. First, Applicant amends M to be M>1 and N to N>1. Applicant expressly does this to differentiate from Kim where Examiner previously stated that M=1 in Kim. The problem with that is that Applicant cannot amend his claim scope to amend around prior art when the specification did not previously contemplate that scope. M>1 does not appear to be disclosed anywhere in the specification, and Remarks, pgs. 8-9 seem to pretty clearly indicate that M>1 is being amended in to differentiate from Kim. Presumably, if Examiner cited a new art where M=2, Applicant would amend the claims to say M>2 and argue that is also nonobvious over the cited art. That scope is also not put forward in the disclosure. Consequently, Claim 1 – and therefore all other claims which include the feature through dependency – lacks written description support.
The second change made to Claim 1 is changing “the network management frames making it possible to identify a version” to “the network management frames comprising information indicating a version.” Applicant makes this amendment for 112b purposes, but assumes the amendment is not relevant for 103 purposes. But Examiner expressly cited Kim using one frame to identify the protocol was a reason for nonobviousness. (“However, because Kim evidences that the art could identify using a single beacon frame, the part of the claim that requires reiterating [a number is greater than 0 and less than M] is not anticipated by Kim…” Non-Final, pg. 9) The same does not hold true for the language “comprising information indicating a version.”
Kim, para. 77 states that the seventh byte of an R1.4 Beacon contains “a five bit beacon sequence value (BCN.SEQ).” Conversely, the seventh to twelfth bytes of a R1.3.6 Beacon contains “a 48 bit subnetwork identifier (BCN.SNA). Therefore, by interrogating the seventh or twelfth byte, one could determine if the Beacon is R1.4 or R1.3.6, because different things will be found there. Consequently, the amount of frames needed to “make it possible to identify” the beacon version is one. Conversely, every beacon will contain values in the seventh and twelfth byte, and therefore “management frames comprising information indicating a version” and thus M>1 (or any other M) is satisfied for the amended language.
Even more directly, Kim para. 78 identifies that in R1.4 Beacons the sixth byte has a fixed value that will not change from beacon to beacon. Conversely, a R1.3.6 Beacon has a sixth byte that changes (“a beacon sequence value (BCN.SEQ) that is iterated for each consecutive beacon”). Consequently, by reading the sixth byte of two beacons and determining whether the value changes, one can determine the version of the beacon. This disclosure shows that only the second beacon had information making it possible to identify a version, because the first beacon did not have information sufficient to identify the version in it and it is only the second beacon that allows for a determination of “fixed” or “changing.” i.e. There is one frame “making it possible to identify…” But the same disclosure is anticipatory of the amended claim language, which simply asks if the two beacons “comprise information indicating” the version – the “fixed” or “changing” analysis utilizes information from both the first beacon and information from the second beacon.
Examiner will additionally make some findings that Kim renders obvious “if no network management frame is received, then switching into another version of the firmware.” One embodiment of this feature is that the system identifies the version through means other than the frames. Kim explicitly posits that manual configuration would allow for determining the version of the communication protocol, see para. 72, which is an act that occurs without receiving a management frame from another device.
Examiner will also make a finding that the feature is obvious to try. Kim posits determining whether a R1.4 or R1.3.6 version is being used. The instant claims do not limit the number of protocols under consideration except to a plurality (“switching into another version of the firmware”). The prior art contemplates a 2-version possibility, and Applicant does not assert that two versions is outside of the claim scope. The claims are therefore obvious to try, see MPEP 2143(I)(E). The number of protocols in the prior art or the claims is two, and even if one contemplated a larger amount of protocols the nature of the problem is that the number of protocols that could be tried by the device is finite: The device is only equipped with a number of protocols that it is capable of using. It was obvious to simply cycle through all the protocol versions known to the device in order to attempt to get a valid result. In other words, if a device was capable of speaking in R1.4, it was obvious to try to communicate in R1.4 to see if it would work with this network before reverting to R1.3.6.
Consequently, Examiner finds Claim 1 obvious over two different avenues. In a first avenue, Examiner relies upon the last conditional branch, and concludes that there are other mechanisms and motivations for switching into another protocol even when a beacon parsing is not used to determine the version the network is using. Under this ground of the rejection, Claims 2-6 place limitations on untraversed conditional branches and require no further teaching. Claims 7-9 are taught by Kim. Kim therefore renders Claims 1-9 obvious on its own.
In a second avenue, Examiner teaches all of the amended second phase with emphasis on the usage of beacon parsing of the sixth, seventh and twelfth bytes to determine the version. Under this ground, which rejects a hypothetical narrower version of the claims following the receipt of beacon frames, Claims 2-6 are relevant to the scope, and Examiner teaches Claims 2-5 with Kim. Examiner notes Kim mentions promotion request frames sufficiently to teach Claim 5, but does not appear to teach using promotion request frames to identify a version. Consequently, Examiner makes no mapping for Claim 6. Claim 6 is obvious over the prior ground logic, and Examiner declines to seek out a reference for teaching a Markush option in a conditional branch, so Examiner takes no position on whether promotion request frames being used to identify versions would be nonobvious.
Before closing discussion of Claim 1, Examiner wishes to highlight one more thing for the record which relevant for itself and further relevant for the upcoming discussion on Claims 10/12. The relevant pieces for discussion of Claim 1 are as follows: Examiner reads Claim 1 as having some common required limitations and some nominated conditional branches. The common limitations are the opening language and a second time delay during which reception is checked, essentially everything up to the newly amended words “by the concentrator device or by another node device.”
The first conditional branch is set apart by a dash and largely reads “if a first and/or second predetermined number of network management frames received comprise information indicating a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device or by another node device that is not implemented by the version of the firmware used by the node device [performing an action]” Examiner construes this branch as having a Markush group in it, where it can be fulfilled by receiving a certain amount of either beacons or promotion requests which have a certain quality to them (they indicate an unused version).
The second conditional branch is set apart by another dash and largely reads “if a number of frames is strictly greater than zero and less than M/N, then reiterating the second phase.”
The third conditional branch is set apart by another dash and largely reads “if no network management frame is received, then switching into another version of the firmware.”
Examiner has endeavored to reject each of these three branches in the second “Alternate” ground of rejection. Examiner has rejected just the third branch in the primary ground of rejection. But Examiner notes that the claim would be obvious if Examiner rejected none of the branches, because the options do not fill the breadth of the outcomes. The claim requires action when (1) no frames are received (switch version), when (2) some but not sufficient frames are received (reiterate), and when (3) sufficient frames are received and indicate a different implementation (switch version to indicated version). But, of course, a fourth possible outcome is that sufficient frames are received and indicate a current implementation. Consequently, Examiner could have rejected Claims 1-9 under the primary ground by teaching only up to the words “by the concentrator device or by another node device.” Examiner wants the record to be clear that just because Examiner has not specifically written out such a rejection (as Examiner has already made two more extensive rejections to the claim for compact prosecution purposes, which Examiner thinks is more than enough) such a rejection would be proper.
Examiner finally turns to Claims 10 and 12, which require little further discussion. As Examiner previously detailed, Examiner has taught all three branches of amended Claim 1, which means the entire method would be obvious even if it contained no conditional limitations. The nonobviousness of the device and medium claims relied upon the fact that original Claim 1 had untaught branches because the broadest reasonable interpretation of computer code requires code for each of the branches regardless of whether the branches are traversed during execution. Amended Claim 1 has no untaught branches, and consequently Claims 10/12 are obvious variants when the circuitry/medium teachings are additionally applied.
All claims are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights