Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-12, 14-20 and 22 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-20 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims recite “wherein the processing is subject to a second constraint that requires an avoidance of a second node that is between the source node and the destination node due to a security breach.”
Due to the syntax of the claim language, it is unclear if an avoidance of a second node is required “due to a security breach,” or if “a second node … is between the source node and the destination node,” “due to a security breach.”
For the instant Office Action, Examiner is interpreting the limitation in question to require the former.
Appropriate correction 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 1-6, 8, 14, 18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718) and Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067).
Regarding claim 1, Wood discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining a representation of a communication network (Fig. 3, paras. [0080]-[0084]; “topology computation module 58 may determine N “non-identical”, non-looping transport layer paths within some bound of total path-metric from the shortest/shortest-cycles paths. These N will be filtered later by the optical systems calculations according to techniques described herein. For example, topology computation module 58 may determine seven “reasonable” transport layer paths—the shortest path; two paths from the shortest cycle and four others different to these paths and to each other.”); and processing the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths and for at least one pair of a source node and a destination node included in the representation, wherein the first subset of paths is less than an entirety of the plurality of paths (para. [0060]; “Topology computation module 58 iteratively analyzes candidate links and abstract link data in view of the traffic demand matrix to select a subset of the candidate links to efficiently and robustly carry the demands. In response to topology computation module 58 determining a logical network topology made up of the selected subset of candidate links, the topology provisioning module 26 may signal, to transport network 54 (or to the network operator), determined network topology information 19 required to route the selected subset of candidate links as demands in the transport layer represented by transport network 54. Network topology information 19 may include the selected subset of the candidate links. The selected subset of the candidate links may be expressed in network topology information 19 as a set of demands for the transport network 54;” para. [0083]; “topology computation module 58 may then filter these paths based on the optical constraints, resulting in K<N useable paths.”).
It could be argued that Wood does not explicitly disclose processing the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths for each class of a plurality of classes. However, in analogous art, Solanki discloses that “the path selector 3124 performs load balancing for each QoS class by distributing packets of the QoS class among multiple active paths of that QoS class (para. [0171]),” wherein “[t]he gateway assigns (at 3220) a QoS class to each path of the multiple paths based on the collected performance metrics. In some embodiments, the process continuously performs operations 3210 and 3220 in order to continuously update the path QoS assignments based on dynamic network characteristics (para. [0175]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood to allow for processing the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths for each class of a plurality of classes. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to more accurately account for the needs of end users.
It could be argued that the combination of Wood and Solanki does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing is subject to a second constraint that requires an avoidance of a second node that is between the source node and the destination node due to a security breach. However, in analogous art, Narain discloses “a hybrid network upon which program code executed by a processor, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, may: 1) compute paths consisting of traditional routers and SDN switches; 2) verify security properties such as the containment of an adversary; 3) trace the intrusion and exfiltration vector of an adversary; and/or 4) find a path to a destination that avoids compromised nodes, is permitted by existing firewall policies and satisfies capacity and bandwidth constraints (para. [0023]; see also Fig. 1).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood and Solanki to allow for the processing to be subject to a second constraint that requires an avoidance of a second node that is between the source node and the destination node due to a security breach. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improved network security.
Finally, the limitations wherein the processing is subject to a first constraint that requires at least a first number of paths to be included in the plurality of paths for each class of the plurality of the classes between the source node and the destination node to provide a resiliency in a provisioning of a communication service between the source node and the destination node are not further limiting, as “a plurality of paths” already inherently requires at least 2 paths, which is “a first number of paths.” Further, regarding the limitation “to provide a resiliency in a provisioning of a communication service,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein each path of the first subset of paths is shorter than any other path that is included in a second subset of paths of the plurality of paths (Wood, paras. [0080]-[0083]; “To compute the paths, topology computation module 58 may calculate three paths and the optimisation algorithm is free to choose between these: [0081] 1. Shortest path [0082] 2. The shorter of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle” [0083] 3. The longer of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle.””).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2, wherein the processing results in an ordering of the first subset of paths in accordance with the respective lengths of the paths (Wood, paras. [0080]-[0083]; “To compute the paths, topology computation module 58 may calculate three paths and the optimisation algorithm is free to choose between these: [0081] 1. Shortest path [0082] 2. The shorter of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle” [0083] 3. The longer of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle.””).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the communication network includes a fiber network (Wood, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of classes corresponds to a respective number of links that are subject to degradation in the fiber network (Wood, para. [0155]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the degradation corresponds to a loss of operability (Wood, paras. [0155]-[0157]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the representation includes a graph (Wood, para. [0141]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the processing is subject to a third constraint that requires less than a second number of paths to be included in the plurality of paths for each class of the plurality of classes (Wood, paras. [0085]; “topology computation module 58 may apply more complicated constraints for determining selected candidate links. For example, a network operator may specify maximum counts, maximum delay, maximum capacity on any group of links, or SRLGs (or any combination thereof);” para. [0088]; “The total resource cost formulas are operator-configurable, such that an operator may focus attention on a single measure of the network “costs” (such as total link “mileage” or “total interface count”) or may use the formulas to gain a realistic measure of actual costs in order to form a fair comparison between different potential solutions.”).
Regarding claim 18, Wood discloses a method, comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, a representation of a communication network (Fig. 3, paras. [0080]-[0084]; “topology computation module 58 may determine N “non-identical”, non-looping transport layer paths within some bound of total path-metric from the shortest/shortest-cycles paths. These N will be filtered later by the optical systems calculations according to techniques described herein. For example, topology computation module 58 may determine seven “reasonable” transport layer paths—the shortest path; two paths from the shortest cycle and four others different to these paths and to each other.”); and processing, by the processing system, the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths and for at least one pair of a source node and a destination node included in the representation, wherein the first subset of paths is less than an entirety of the plurality of paths (para. [0060]; “Topology computation module 58 iteratively analyzes candidate links and abstract link data in view of the traffic demand matrix to select a subset of the candidate links to efficiently and robustly carry the demands. In response to topology computation module 58 determining a logical network topology made up of the selected subset of candidate links, the topology provisioning module 26 may signal, to transport network 54 (or to the network operator), determined network topology information 19 required to route the selected subset of candidate links as demands in the transport layer represented by transport network 54. Network topology information 19 may include the selected subset of the candidate links. The selected subset of the candidate links may be expressed in network topology information 19 as a set of demands for the transport network 54;” para. [0083]; “topology computation module 58 may then filter these paths based on the optical constraints, resulting in K<N useable paths.”).
It could be argued that Wood does not explicitly disclose processing the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths for each class of a plurality of classes. However, in analogous art, Solanki discloses that “the path selector 3124 performs load balancing for each QoS class by distributing packets of the QoS class among multiple active paths of that QoS class (para. [0171]),” wherein “[t]he gateway assigns (at 3220) a QoS class to each path of the multiple paths based on the collected performance metrics. In some embodiments, the process continuously performs operations 3210 and 3220 in order to continuously update the path QoS assignments based on dynamic network characteristics (para. [0175]).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood to allow for processing the representation to identify a first subset of paths included in a plurality of paths for each class of a plurality of classes. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to more accurately account for the needs of end users.
It could be argued that the combination of Wood and Solanki does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing is subject to a second constraint that requires an avoidance of a second node that is between the source node and the destination node due to a security breach. However, in analogous art, Narain discloses “a hybrid network upon which program code executed by a processor, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, may: 1) compute paths consisting of traditional routers and SDN switches; 2) verify security properties such as the containment of an adversary; 3) trace the intrusion and exfiltration vector of an adversary; and/or 4) find a path to a destination that avoids compromised nodes, is permitted by existing firewall policies and satisfies capacity and bandwidth constraints (para. [0023]; see also Fig. 1).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood and Solanki to allow for the processing to be subject to a second constraint that requires an avoidance of a second node that is between the source node and the destination node due to a security breach. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for improved network security.
Finally, the limitations wherein the processing is subject to a first constraint that requires at least a first number of paths to be included in the plurality of paths for each class of the plurality of the classes between the source node and the destination node to provide a resiliency in a provisioning of a communication service between the source node and the destination node are not further limiting, as “a plurality of paths” already inherently requires at least 2 paths, which is “a first number of paths.” Further, regarding the limitation “to provide a resiliency in a provisioning of a communication service,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the communication network includes a fiber network (Wood, para. [0004]), and wherein each path of the first subset of paths is shorter than any other path that is included in a second subset of paths of the plurality of paths (Wood, paras. [0080]-[0083]; “To compute the paths, topology computation module 58 may calculate three paths and the optimisation algorithm is free to choose between these: [0081] 1. Shortest path [0082] 2. The shorter of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle” [0083] 3. The longer of the two paths on a calculated “shortest-diverse-cycle.””).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the second constraint is specified by a subscriber to the communication network (Narain, para. [0059]).
Claims 7, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718), Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067) and Archer et al. (Pat. No.: US 7,835,284).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one pair of the source node and the destination node includes a plurality of pairs of source nodes and destination nodes. However, in analogous art, Archer discloses “said automated routing strategy determining, for any pair of nodes of said plurality of nodes of said parallel computer system, a respective path along said network from a first node of the respective pair of nodes to a second node of the respective pair of nodes based on the arrangement of said regular lattice network, wherein each said packet has a respective source node of said plurality of nodes and a respective destination node of said plurality of nodes (see the language of claim 1).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for the at least one pair of the source node and the destination node includes a plurality of pairs of source nodes and destination nodes. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for multiple pathways to be determined involving different endpoints, which could increase the chances of finding a desirable pathway when different endpoints could be used.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processing is subject to: a third constraint that requires a utilization of a first node that is between the source node and the destination node. However, in analogous art, Archer discloses that “the link between nodes 611 and 604 is particularly burdened, because the traffic from nodes 601, 602 and 603 to nodes 604, 605 and 606, respectively, all passes through this link. It will further be observed that congestion of the link between nodes 611 and 604 is unnecessary from the standpoint of the network's physical arrangement of links. E.g., the traffic could have been routed to avoid this link entirely, or so that the packets are distributed among different links to avoid contention. Finally, it will be noted that, even if the sending node attempts to take into account the congestion on the immediate links, it will not necessarily avoid contention of the type depicted in FIG. 6, so long as it has only local network state information available to it. For example, even if sending nodes 601, 602 and 603 consider the congestion on their immediate links, they can not see the contention at node 611, and are therefore likely to choose the exact same paths in the x-coordinate dimension (col. 15, ln. 11-28),” wherein “[i]n accordance with the preferred embodiment, congestion is relieved in at least some circumstances and network performance improved by routing selective packets through a respective specified intermediate node en route to a final destination, the intermediate node being referred to as a transporter node. Routing through a transporter node gives the system greater flexibility in routing around link congestion (col. 15, ln. 31-37).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for the processing to be subject to a first constraint that requires a utilization of a first node that is between the source node and the destination node. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to route around congested areas of a network and thus alleviate stress on overburdened portions of the system.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the method of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the at least one pair comprises a plurality of pairs. However, in analogous art, Archer discloses “said automated routing strategy determining, for any pair of nodes of said plurality of nodes of said parallel computer system, a respective path along said network from a first node of the respective pair of nodes to a second node of the respective pair of nodes based on the arrangement of said regular lattice network, wherein each said packet has a respective source node of said plurality of nodes and a respective destination node of said plurality of nodes (see the language of claim 1).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for the at least one pair to comprises a plurality of pairs. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for multiple pathways to be determined involving different endpoints, which could increase the chances of finding a desirable pathway when different endpoints could be used.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718), Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067) and Kayyoor et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,742,670).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the processing of the representation includes first processing and second processing that occurs subsequent to the first processing, and wherein the operations further comprise: selecting first portions of the representation for the first processing based on the first portions having a higher edge betweenness centrality (EBC) value in respect of edges of the graph relative to second portions of the representation. However, in analogous art, Kayyoor discloses that “[t]he first action in each iterative summarization of any given graph G may be to prioritize node candidates. In determining which nodes and which edges of graph G will be collapsed into supernodes and superedges, the utility graph summary application 108 may execute an algorithm (e.g., a node current flow centrality algorithm, a betweenness centrality algorithm, etc.) to determine a relative importance level of each node compared to each other node and each edge compared to each other edge; for example, a node betweenness centrality algorithm may be executed to determine the relative importance of each of the nodes, and an edge betweenness centrality algorithm may be executed to determine the relative importance of each of the edges (col. 5, ln. 64 – col. 6, ln. 9).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for the processing of the representation to include first processing and second processing that occurs subsequent to the first processing, and wherein the operations further comprise: selecting first portions of the representation for the first processing based on the first portions having a higher edge betweenness centrality (EBC) value in respect of edges of the graph relative to second portions of the representation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the relative importance of each of the edges to be determined, which could increase the performance of the system.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718), Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067), Kayyoor et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,742,670) and Donovan et al. (Pat. No.: US 6,072,951).
Regarding claim 10, the combination as stated above discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the second portions of the representation are associated with the second processing, and wherein the second processing leverages an output of the first processing to reduce an execution time of the processing of the representation. However, in analogous art, Donovan discloses a technique “to cache the frequently executed path(s) of a child procedure (col. 9, ln. 10-16),” wherein when “the selected frequently executed path(s) pass the tests of steps 154, 156 and 158, the optimizing process proceeds to step 160, in which the frequently executed path(s) is(are) cached into memory for later inlining into parent procedures, as discussed above. Next, in step 162, a list of automatic storage locations used in the cached frequently executed path(s) is cached into memory, for later use when inlining the frequently executed path(s) into parent procedures, as discussed above. After these steps, processing of the procedure is completed (step 164) (col. 10, ln. 48-57).” Therefore, 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 above art to allow for the second portions of the representation to be associated with the second processing, and wherein the second processing leverages an output of the first processing to reduce an execution time of the processing of the representation. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for future processing to leverage information which has already been determined, thus “resulting in substantially improved speed of execution of the program with reduced expense in terms of program size (Donovan, col. 10, ln. 58-63).”
Regarding claim 11, the combination as stated above discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the first processing results in the output being stored to a cache, and wherein the second processing leverages the output from the cache (Donovan, col. 10, ln. 48-57. This claim is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718), Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067) and Chiarizio et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,750,426).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the processing is subject to a fourth constraint that requires that the processing be completed in an amount of time that is less than a threshold. However, in analogous art, Chiarizio discloses that “[i]n an aspect, each one of the “quiet” algorithm 110 and the “noisy” algorithm 112 may spend a limited amount of time or a limited number of iterations over the candidate devices 114 to find a suboptimal pathway so that the wireless communication device 102 may quickly join or rejoin the wireless communication network 100 and start communicating with the central controller 104 (col. 9, ln. 47-53).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for the processing to be subject to a fourth constraint that requires that the processing be completed in an amount of time that is less than a threshold. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for there to be constraints on how much time and processing power was allocated to determining a given set of paths.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 14, but does not disclose wherein during the processing of the representation a timeout is reached in respect of a given class included in the plurality of classes, wherein the processing of the representation includes first processing performed in respect of a first plurality of paths included in the first subset of paths for the given class and second processing performed in respect of a second plurality of paths included in the first subset of paths for the given class, the first plurality of paths being identified prior to the timeout being reached and the second plurality of paths being identified subsequent to the timeout being reached, the second plurality of paths being different from the first plurality of paths. However, in analogous art, Chiarizio discloses that “[i]n an aspect, each one of the “quiet” algorithm 110 and the “noisy” algorithm 112 may spend a limited amount of time or a limited number of iterations over the candidate devices 114 to find a suboptimal pathway so that the wireless communication device 102 may quickly join or rejoin the wireless communication network 100 and start communicating with the central controller 104 (col. 9, ln. 47-53).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for during the processing of the representation a timeout is reached in respect of a given class included in the plurality of classes, wherein the processing of the representation includes first processing performed in respect of a first plurality of paths included in the first subset of paths for the given class and second processing performed in respect of a second plurality of paths included in the first subset of paths for the given class, the first plurality of paths being identified prior to the timeout being reached and the second plurality of paths being identified subsequent to the timeout being reached, the second plurality of paths being different from the first plurality of paths. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for the system to conduct a systematic process to determine the necessary paths, while allowing for there to be constraints on how much time and processing power was allocated to determining a given set of paths.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0191194) in view of Solanki et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0118718), Narain (Pub. No.: US 2017/0006067) and Belcea (Pat. No.: US 7,106,703).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wood, Solanki and Narain discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: each path of the first subset of paths has a greater signal to noise plus interference ratio (SINR) relative to any other path that is included in a second subset of paths of the plurality of paths, each path of the first subset of paths is associated with less transmission power relative to any other path that is included in the second subset of paths, each path of the first subset of paths is associated with greater throughput relative to any other path that is included in the second subset of paths, each path of the first subset of paths is associated with a lesser degree of modulation/demodulation complexity relative to any other path that is included in the second subset of paths, or any combination thereof. However, in analogous art, Belcea discloses that “a significant operation parameter in ad-hoc networks is the selection of transmission paths between devices requiring the lowest power consumption levels. Given no other factors, a transmission path comprised of short hops between multiple, closely spaced mobile devices will typically require less transmission power than a path comprised of fewer hops between widely spaced devices. Therefore a path requiring less transmission power is often possible where a large number of dispersed mobile devices within an ad-hoc network exist (col. 1, ln. 38-47).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood, Solanki and Narain to allow for wherein: each path of the first subset of paths is associated with less transmission power relative to any other path that is included in the second subset of paths. This would have produced predictable and desirable results, in that it would allow for power savings to be a factor in the selection of pathways.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed February 13, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 1-2 and 14-21, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously presented 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 1-2 and 14-21 has been withdrawn.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejections are rendered moot, based on the new grounds of rejection in view of Narain.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12, 14-20 and 22 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Taylor whose telephone number is (571)270-3755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 6 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/Joshua D Taylor/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights