DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur et al. (US 2025/0039688 A1, hereinafter “Vasseur”) in view of Graul et al. (US 2021/0120485 A1, hereinafter “Graul”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Vasseur teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors (e.g., controller 130 of fig. 1. Fig. 6, ¶ [0028]) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, via the at least one transceiver, information regarding a topology of a mesh network (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0030], ¶ [0051], ¶ [0022], The AP 102-1, AP 102-2, and AP 102-3 are neighboring (peer) APs. In some cases, a client STA may also communicate peer-to-peer with another client STA. ¶ [0026], ¶ [0027], the controller 130 may be communicatively coupled to (or integrated with) one or more databases 140. The database(s) 140 may include different types of metrics, including application performance metrics (e.g., frame retransmission counters, jitter, latency, delay, etc.), communication link metrics (e.g., received signal strength indication (RSSI), modulation and coding scheme (MCS), etc.), AP load information (including real-time load information and historical load information), and AP power on/power off state information (including real-time and historical power on/power off state information), ¶ [0038]); and perform, based on the information, one or more actions to adjust power consumption at one or more wireless nodes of the mesh network (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0030], the controller 230 includes logic for dynamically adapting the wireless topology of a network by dynamically powering off (or reducing the power of) one or more radios of one or more APs 102 deployed within an environment. The controller 230 may determine a number of the APs 102 to power off (or reduce the power of), based on a target SLA of one or more client STAs being served by the APs 102. ¶ [0031], ¶ [0032], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0037]-¶ [0039]).
Vasseur does not explicitly teach mesh network comprising a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node; determining whether at least one condition for adjusting energy saving rules related to a backhaul link of the end node is satisfied; and responsive to determining that the at least one condition is satisfied, adjusting the energy saving rules related to the backhaul link of the end node.
Graul teaches a network comprising a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node (fig. 5); determining whether at least one condition for adjusting energy saving rules related to a backhaul of the end node is satisfied; and responsive to determining that the at least one condition is satisfied, adjusting the energy saving rules related to the end node (figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0003], ¶ [0023], [0104], In a step S210, the requesting node sends to an adjacent node, in this case the node B in FIG. 5, a message M1 comprising a standby request. ¶ [0106], In a step E215, the receiving node B sends a message M2 to the requesting node A, said message M2 indicating that it refuses the standby request. ¶ [0108] A response to the message M1: refused; ¶ [0109] A reason for the refusal: intermediate node; and ¶ [0110] Optionally, the list of its adjacent nodes. ¶ [0111] This is because the node B, being an intermediate node, must first ensure that all its adjacent nodes are on standby before accepting a standby request. ¶ [0114] In a step E218, once the nodes C and D are on standby, the intermediate receiving node B sends to the requesting node A a message M4 comprising a request to enable standby).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node in the mesh network, and to adjust the energy saving rules related to the backhaul link of the end node responsive to determining that the at least one condition related to the end node is satisfied in the system of Vasseur to improve industrial applicability and to avoid service interruption.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise: steering one or more clients away from a first wireless node of the mesh network to a second wireless node of the mesh network (Vasseur: fig. 4, ¶ [0056], At block 406, the computing device requests client STA(s) associated with the determined AP to roam to another AP within the set of Aps. ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Vasseur teaches in view of Graul the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: select the second wireless node based on one or more suitability criteria (Vasseur: figs. 4, ¶ [0047], ¶ [0048], ¶ [0055], the computing device may determine which AP to power off, based on at least one of the number of client STAs 104 associated with that AP, the overlap of the measured cells 110, or energy consumption of the AP. ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more actions further comprise adjusting one or more parameters to place the first wireless node in an energy saving state after steering the one or more clients away from the first wireless node (Vasseur: figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0055], ¶ [0056], the computing device requests client STA(s) associated with the determined AP to roam to another AP within the set of APs. ¶ [0057], the updated set of APs may include a smaller number of APs that are powered on, compared to the number of APs in the set of APs at block 404. ¶ [0061], compared to the wireless network topology 200, APs 102-2, 102-3, 102-7, 102-9, 102-14, and 102-15 have been powered off. Additionally, compared to the wireless network topology 200, the cell 110-8 of AP 102-8 has been extended to cover any client STA(s) 104 previously associated with one or more of the APs 102-2, 102-3, 102-7, 102-9, 102-14, and 102-15).
Regarding claim 6, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the information comprises location information associated with the one or more clients relative to the one or more wireless nodes; or the one or more suitability criteria involves the location information (Vasseur: figs.3, 4, ¶ [0047], ¶ [0048], ¶ [0055], the computing device may determine which AP to power off, based on at least one of the number of client STAs 104 associated with that AP, the overlap of the measured cells 110, or energy consumption of the AP. ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Vasseur in view Graul of teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one condition relates to a service level agreement (SLA) of a client served by the end node (Vasseur: figs.3, 4, ¶ [0037], ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of: the at least one condition is met if the end node has entered an energy saving state; or the one or more actions comprise reducing a number of links in the at least one backhaul link.
Graul teaches wherein at least one of: the at least one condition is met if the end node has entered an energy saving state; or the one or more actions comprise reducing a number of links in the at least one backhaul link (figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0114] In a step E218, once the nodes C and D are on standby, the intermediate receiving node B sends to the requesting node A a message M4 comprising a request to enable standby).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to determine that the condition is met if the end node has entered an energy saving state in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul to further improve industrial applicability and to avoid service interruption.
Regarding claim 11, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise selecting one or more transmission parameters for one or more of the one or more wireless nodes of the mesh network, based on the information (Vasseur: figs. 3-5, ¶ [0056], the computing device requests client STA(s) associated with the determined AP to roam to another AP within the set of APs. Note, in certain embodiments, the roaming of client STA(s) to the other AP may result in an increase in power consumption of that AP (e.g., due to an increase in Tx/Rx activity on the AP). For instance, the AP may have to increase its transmission power in order to extend the range of its corresponding cell 110 to cover the additional client STA(s). ¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise reducing a transmit power on the one or more wireless nodes (Vasseur: figs. 3-5, ¶ [0018], a system can dynamically adapt a wireless network topology by powering off (or reducing the power of) one or more APs deployed within an environment while maintaining a target SLA for one or more client STAs being served by the one or more APs. By adapting the wireless network topology. ¶ [0030], ¶ [0049], ¶ [0055], ¶ [0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the information indicates at least relative location of wireless nodes in the mesh network; and the transmit power is reduced, based on the at least the relative location of the wireless nodes, in a manner that maintains a coverage area of the mesh network (Vasseur: figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0056], At block 406, the computing device requests client STA(s) associated with the determined AP to roam to another AP within the set of APs. Note, in certain embodiments, the roaming of client STA(s) to the other AP may result in an increase in power consumption of that AP (e.g., due to an increase in Tx/Rx activity on the AP). For instance, the AP may have to increase its transmission power in order to extend the range of its corresponding cell 110 to cover the additional client STA(s). ¶ [0061], compared to the wireless network topology 200, APs 102-2, 102-3, 102-7, 102-9, 102-14, and 102-15 have been powered off. Additionally, compared to the wireless network topology 200, the cell 110-8 of AP 102-8 has been extended to cover any client STA(s) 104 previously associated with one or more of the APs 102-2, 102-3, 102-7, 102-9, 102-14, and 102-15).
Regarding claim 20, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to operate as an access point (AP), (Vasseur: figs. 1-4, ¶ [0028], In certain embodiments, the controller 130 is included within or integrated with an AP 102 and coordinates the links 150 formed by that AP 102 (or otherwise provides control for that AP).).
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carty et al. (US 2013/0329619 A1, hereinafter “Carty”) in view of Graul.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Carty teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors (figs. 31, 34, ¶ [0117]) configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive, via the at least one transceiver, information regarding a topology of a mesh network (figs. 1-31, ¶ [0048], ¶ [0067], Referring to FIG. 2, there is illustrated an access point (AP) 200 upon which an example embodiment is implemented. A PHY with RF circuitry may be employed instead of an Ethernet PHY if the distribution network (not shown) is a mesh network. ¶ [0102], ¶ [0123], At 3402, data is received from a plurality of access points about current network activity. For example, the data may include the number of associated clients, as well as throughput, data rate, signal to noise ratio (SNR), and/or Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) for each associated client. Based on the received data, a determination is made as to which access points (APS) currently have associated clients at 3404. ¶ [0073], ¶ [0087]- ¶ [0091], ¶ [0092], If the controller observes a number of mobile devices (clients) associating to one or more cells while some access points are in power save (sleep) mode, the controller may switch additional access points into operational mode. ¶ [0093], ¶ [0100]); and perform, based on the information, one or more actions to adjust power consumption at one or more wireless nodes of the mesh network (figs. 1-31, ¶ [0085], The controller can determine whether mobile device 602 can be serviced by the access point in AP cell #12 526 and/or whether mobile device 604 can be serviced by the access point in AP cell #8 518. In this example, mobile device 602 is in an area covered by both AP cell #8 518 and AP cell #12 526. Therefore, the controller can instruct (force) mobile device 602 to roam to the access point at AP cell #12 526. ¶ [0086], FIG. 18 illustrates the network of FIG. 16 after a forced roam (active grouping) of mobile device 602. Because mobile device 602 is now associated with AP cell #12 526, the access points in AP cell #3 506 and AP cell #4 508 can be switched to power save mode because they are no longer adjacent to a cell with an associated mobile device. ¶ [0087]- ¶ [0092], ¶ [0099]).
Carty does not explicitly teach mesh network comprising a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node; determining whether at least one condition for adjusting energy saving rules related to a backhaul link of the end node is satisfied; and responsive to determining that the at least one condition is satisfied, adjusting the energy saving rules related to the backhaul link of the end node.
Graul teaches a network comprising a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node (fig. 5); determining whether at least one condition for adjusting energy saving rules related to the end node is satisfied; and responsive to determining that the at least one condition is satisfied, adjusting the energy saving rules related to the end node (figs. 4, 5, ¶ [0104], In a step S210, the requesting node sends to an adjacent node, in this case the node B in FIG. 5, a message M1 comprising a standby request. ¶ [0106], In a step E215, the receiving node B sends a message M2 to the requesting node A, said message M2 indicating that it refuses the standby request. ¶ [0108] A response to the message M1: refused; ¶ [0109] A reason for the refusal: intermediate node; and ¶ [0110] Optionally, the list of its adjacent nodes. ¶ [0111] This is because the node B, being an intermediate node, must first ensure that all its adjacent nodes are on standby before accepting a standby request. ¶ [0114] In a step E218, once the nodes C and D are on standby, the intermediate receiving node B sends to the requesting node A a message M4 comprising a request to enable standby).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to implement a daisy chain of multiple hops including an end node in the mesh network, and to adjust the energy saving rules related to the backhaul link of the end node responsive to determining that the at least one condition related to the end node is satisfied in the system of Carty to improve industrial applicability and to avoid service interruption.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise: steering one or more clients away from a first wireless node of the mesh network to a second wireless node of the mesh network (Carty: fig. 17, 18, ¶ [0085], The controller can determine whether mobile device 602 can be serviced by the access point in AP cell #12 526 and/or whether mobile device 604 can be serviced by the access point in AP cell #8 518. In this example, mobile device 602 is in an area covered by both AP cell #8 518 and AP cell #12 526. Therefore, the controller can instruct (force) mobile device 602 to roam to the access point at AP cell #12 526. ¶ [0086]. ¶ [0096], ¶ [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: select the second wireless node based on one or more suitability criteria (Carty: figs. 5-24, ¶ [0085]-¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more actions further comprise adjusting one or more parameters to place the first wireless node in an energy saving state after steering the one or more clients away from the first wireless node (Carty: figs. 5-24, ¶ [0085]-¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the information comprises location information associated with the one or more clients relative to the one or more wireless nodes; or the one or more suitability criteria involves the location information (Carty: figs. 5-24, ¶ [0085]-¶ [0088], ¶ [0089], A more complex algorithm can use location information (which can be determined using received signal strength indication (RSSI), Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA), Angle of Arrival (AOA), etc.) to determine which additional cells to activate and how to adjust cell size accordingly. In an example embodiment, in addition to determining which cells to activate, the controller or device implementing the power save algorithm determines the best channel for each cell to operate so as to minimize interference with adjacent cells. ¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise selecting one or more transmission parameters for one or more of the one or more wireless nodes of the mesh network, based on the information (Carty: figs. 5-24, ¶ [[0087]-¶ [0091], ¶ [0093], If the controller observes the number of mobile devices (clients) within an area decreasing, the controller may switch access points to power save mode and increase the coverage areas of one of the adjacent cells to compensate for the access points in power save mode. The coverage area for the access point of AP cell #10 1920 may be increased by increasing the transmit power, decreasing the SOP, and/or decreasing the CCA for the access point ).
Regarding claim 12, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more transmission parameters comprise at least one of a channel, a bandwidth, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), or a number of spatial streams (Carty: ¶ [0065], ¶ [0089], in addition to determining which cells to activate, the controller or device implementing the power save algorithm determines the best channel for each cell to operate so as to minimize interference with adjacent cells).
Regarding claim 13, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the channel, bandwidth, or number of spatial streams are selected to allow the first wireless node of the mesh network to serve a number of clients so a second wireless node of the mesh network can enter an energy saving state (Carty: figs. 5-24, ¶ [[0087]-¶ [0091], ¶ [0093], If the controller observes the number of mobile devices (clients) within an area decreasing, the controller may switch access points to power save mode and increase the coverage areas of one of the adjacent cells to compensate for the access points in power save mode. The coverage area for the access point of AP cell #10 1920 may be increased by increasing the transmit power, decreasing the SOP, and/or decreasing the CCA for the access point).
Regarding claim 14, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions comprise reducing a transmit power on the one or more wireless nodes (Carty: figs. 1-23, ¶ [0087], For a multi-density capable deployment, an algorithm can be employed that dynamically increases and/or decreases cell size by adjusting transmit power (and optionally clear channel assessment "CCA" and start of packet "SOP" thresholds). When a multi-density capable network is in normal operation (for example, during the standard work day) all access point cells are active with configuration settings consistent for a "small cell." AP transmit (TX) power is turned down, ¶ [0088]-¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 15, Carty in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the information indicates at least relative location of wireless nodes in the mesh network; and the transmit power is reduced, based on the at least the relative location of the wireless nodes, in a manner that maintains a coverage area of the mesh network (Carty: figs. 5-23, ¶ [0087], ¶ [0088], ¶ [0089], the approximate center of network activity can be determined by which access points have clients associated with them. A more complex algorithm can use location information (which can be determined using received signal strength indication (RSSI), Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA), Angle of Arrival (AOA), etc.) to determine which additional cells to activate and how to adjust cell size accordingly. In an example embodiment, in addition to determining which cells to activate, the controller or device implementing the power save algorithm determines the best channel for each cell to operate so as to minimize interference with adjacent cells. ¶ [0091], ¶ [0096], ¶ [0097]).
8. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Graul as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chennichetty et al. (US 2021/0120454 A1, hereinafter “Chennichetty”).
Regarding claim 4, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more suitability criteria comprises the second wireless node being in closer proximity to a root node than one or more other wireless nodes of the mesh network.
Chennichetty teaches one or more suitability criteria comprises the second wireless node being in closer proximity to a root node than one or more other wireless nodes of the mesh network (fig. 1, ¶ [0041], ¶ [0044], In some implementations, the delay requirement may represent a maximum amount of delay (through a path to the root AP or gateway) that is acceptable for the QoS profile. A delay may be quantified as a time period or may be quantified as a hop count. A hop count refers to the number of links (between serving APs, intermediate APs, and the root AP) that are used in a path. A first path having a higher hop count may be considered as having a higher delay than a second path having a lower hop count. ¶ [0045], ¶ [0061], ¶ [0080], a gaming application with an AC_VO designation may perform better with a lower number of hops between the device and the root AP 110 (or the gateway device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to set one or more suitability criteria as the second wireless node being in closer proximity to a root node than one or more other wireless nodes of the mesh network in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul to effectively and efficiently serve each client in the network (¶ [0046] of Chennichetty ).
Regarding claim 7, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein the suitability criteria also involves a capabilities match between the one or more clients and the second wireless node.
Chennichetty teaches wherein the suitability criteria also involves a capabilities match between the one or more clients and the second wireless node (¶ [0046], ¶ [0047]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to set capabilities match between the one or more clients and the second wireless node as a suitability criteria in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul to effectively and efficiently serve each client in the network (¶ [0046] of Chennichetty ).
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Graul as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 112911685 A, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 7, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein the suitability criteria also involves a capabilities match between the one or more clients and the second wireless node.
However, it is well known in the art to select a wireless node (i.e., AP) based on matching capabilities between the client(s) and the wireless node(s), as evidenced by page 8 (SME according to the capability parameter stored locally, reading the logic AP information matched with the network capability in the locally stored BSSDescription; the logic AP capable of meeting the capability of all terminals as the candidate logic AP) of Wu.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to set capabilities match between the one or more clients and the second wireless node as a suitability criteria in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul to further enhance system efficiency and reliability.
10. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Graul as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao (CN 119605263 A).
Regarding claim 16, Vasseur in view of Graul teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more actions comprise adjusting at least one of an amount of control message signaling or frequency of control message signaling between wireless nodes of the mesh network, the adjustment being based on an energy savings policy.
However, it is well known in the art to adjust at least one of an amount of control message signaling or frequency of control message signaling between wireless nodes of the network based on an energy savings policy, as evidenced by Page 6 (the power saving function may include at least one of the following: The processor frequency is reduced, one or more functional components are closed, the radio interface is closed, the transmission or reception of signalling is reduced, the transmission rate is reduced, or the communication mechanism is adjusted) of Mao.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to save energy by adjusting at least one of an amount of control message signaling or frequency of control message signaling between wireless nodes of the mesh network based on an energy savings policy in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul to utilize conventional techniques in the art.
11. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Graul and Mao as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0141708 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 17, Vasseur in view of Graul and Mao teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Vasseur does not explicitly teach wherein the control message signaling comprises at least one of: a topology request, a topology response, a link status request, a link status response, a client status request, a status client response, an auto channel selection (ACS) request, an ACS response, a channel availability check (CAC) request, or a CAC response.
Chen the control message signaling comprises at least one of: a topology request, a topology response, a link status request, a link status response, a client status request, a status client response, an ACS request, an ACS response, a CAC request, or a CAC response (¶ [0251]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to exchange at least one of: a topology request, a topology response, a link status request, a link status response, a client status request, a status client response, an ACS request, an ACS response, a CAC request, or a CAC response in the system of Vasseur in view of Graul and Mao to further improve industrial applicability.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed on July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights