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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of FR 2300668 filed 1/25/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim(s) 11, the language is drawn to a computer program which is neither executed by a computer, nor stored on a physical structure.
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) 1-12 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is representative of all claims, and includes the feature “a frame of any type making it possible to identify a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device.” The boundaries of what frame can be received are unclear because the claim does not identify a structure or mechanism for how the identification occurs, so a person of ordinary skill would not be made aware of what frame could be received. Functional limitations may be indefinite when the claim merely recites a problem to be solved and a person of ordinary skill would not know what structures are encompassed by the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 1 is representative of all claims, and includes the feature “if a first predetermined number M of network management frames of the ‘beacon’ type received and/or a second predetermined number N of network management frames of the ‘promotion request’ type received make it possible to identify a version of the communication protocol used by the concentrator device.” The boundaries of the number are both ambiguous and vague. First, different identification techniques would presumably require different M/N values, and the claim is not limited by a particular identification technique, and therefore persons of ordinary skill would disagree as to what M/N values would be infringing of “make it possible to identify.” Second, the values for M/N are unclear because the claim merely states a result (“make it possible to identify”) without identifying a structure or mechanism for identification. Functional limitations may be indefinite when the claim merely recites a problem to be solved and a person of ordinary skill would not know what structures are encompassed by the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(g). For a similar reason, the related “a number of network management frames…strictly smaller than the first[/second] predetermined number M[/N]” limitations are also indefinite.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if “so that the value of the bit field indicates” is a further limitation on the scope. Examiner views the language as prolix, i.e. the claim requires each frame to comprise a bit field, and not the additional step of using the bit field as the identification indicator.
Claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for “the bit field.”
Claim 6 lacks antecedent basis for “the bit field.”
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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) in view of Vedantham (US Pub. 2014/0056369).
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 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 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 making it possible to identify a version of the communication protocol used; if a first predetermined number M of network management frames of the “beacon” type received and/or a second predetermined number N of network management frames of the “promotion request” type received make it possible to identify 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, and then reiterating the first phase; 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, and then reiterating the first phase. (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.
With respect to Claims 2-7, 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 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, the additional limitations modify contingent features, and therefore do not affect the broadest reasonable scope of the claims. It is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Remarks
Pursuant to MPEP 2111.04, the method claims may be obvious when just the first phase is obvious because the actions in the second phase are contingent actions (“and otherwise triggering a second phase comprising…”) that are non-limiting on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method. However, the structural claims – Claims 10-12 comprising a device, software, a non-transient storage medium, respectively – have a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires a structure to implement both the first and second phases to be obvious to be rejected under 103. Examiner finds the first phase to be obvious and the second phase in combination with the first phase to be nonobvious. Consequently, Examiner makes a obviousness rejection to Claim 1 and no obviousness rejection to Claims 10-12. Further, with the exception of Claim 8, the dependent claims only further limit actions that are performed in the second phase. Consequently, they are obvious over the same teachings that render Claim 1 obvious.
Examiner notes that Kim substantially teaches even the second phase and the dependent claims, but the claim includes particular M/N values and has limitations about actions taken when the number of frames received is relative to those numbers. The core of the second phase is essentially “if sufficient beacon/promotion request frames are received to identify a version of the communication protocol, identify the protocol; if not, wait for more frames to be received.” Using beacon data to identify the communication protocol is rendered obvious by Kim, which teaches using the data of a single beacon frame to identify the protocol, see Kim, para. 78; by parsing one byte, the device may determine which type of beacon is being transmitted. However, because Kim evidences that the art could identify using a single beacon frame, the part of the claim that requires reiterating while “a number of network management frames of the ‘beacon’ type is strictly greater than zero and strictly smaller than the first predetermined number ‘M’…” is not anticipated by Kim, and Examiner fails to see how it could be obvious. i.e. The invention presupposes that the number of beacon frames necessary for (“make it possible to”) identification of a communication protocol (M) is greater than one. But a person of ordinary skill in the art knew that M=1. Consequently, the artsman would never be in the state where the number of beacon frames received was greater than zero and less than one. When this feature is limiting on the claim scope, the claim becomes nonobvious.
Conclusion
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