Detailed Action
1. The Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 09/25/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-22 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
2. Based on the amendment to the claims 15-20, it’s to acknowledge that claims 15-20 do not invoke to interpret the claim limitations under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
2.1. In Remarks, applicant presents the arguments for the corresponding claim limitations of claims 1 & 15 “transmitting, by the device via the wireless network, uplink data to the plurality of nodes using the multicast address during the first network time slot, wherein the device is a leaf node”.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In accordance with MPEP 2111, claim limitations could be reasonably interpreted that claim requirements are a device, as to a leaf node, for transmitting uplink data, i.e., transmitting data in upward or reverse direction, with the multicast address [claim does not specifically define whether the multicast address is a group address with multiple devices, or the multiple addresses as a multicast address].
PNG
media_image2.png
460
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Indeed, Hui teaches the device for transmitting data in upward direction (par. 0047 and fig. 11-15). If so, Hui does not explicitly mention the use of the multicast address and describe the situation in which a leaf node for transmitting data in upward direction. In particular, Igarashi teaches multicast address, time slot for transmitting (fig. 3A-B) and a terminal for communication to AP, i.e., upward direction, for handover (par. 0111-0112). It means that with the teachings mentioned above from Hui and Igarashi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combination of Hui and Igarashi to perform equally well to the address claims. could have rendered obvious as 300a-f in fig. 1 of Igarashi is a leaf node. However, to advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided. In particular, Wetterwald teaches a leaf node (non-router nodes in fig. 4 or 7, for instance, node 32) and the intermediate nodes (1520 in fig. 15 and par. 0105) for accepting the incoming frame (par. 076) for upward and downward (fig. 13A-C). Additionally, in fig. 8, Wetterwald teaches node 32 (fig. 4 or 7) assign slots in frame 802 as a leaf node or an intermediate node, performing as a parent, to child node as depicted fig. 8 for receiving and transmitting slots to child nodes 41 & 42 in fig. 4 & 7 for DAG 400.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejection to the independent claims are sustained.
It’s to note that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 1, 5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al. Pub. No.: US 2013/0121335 A1 in view of Igarashi et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0066226 A1 and Wetterwald et al. Pub. No.: US 2016/0021014 A1.
Claim 1
Hui discloses a device (node or device 200 in fig. 2) comprising:
a transceiver (network interface 210 in fig. 2) configurable to communicate via a wireless network (as depicted in fig. 1, 4 & 11-15, node or device 200 in fig. 2 communicate in wireless network in domain A-C); and
a processor (processor 220 in fig. 2) coupled to the transceiver (processors 220 communicate through bus 250 to network interfaces 210 in fig. 2), the processor configured to:
PNG
media_image3.png
486
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
receive, via the transceiver (network interfaces 210 in fig. 2) over the wireless network, a multicast address (multicast message 1140 in fig. 11 in view fig. 3 and par. 0096), wherein the multicast address is assigned to a first network time slot (see listening schedule fig. 7-10 in view of fig. 5; for instance, B3 in fig. 9A-B and see altogether in fig. 10 or B1 in fig. 8 or 920 in fig. 10) and addresses a plurality of nodes of the wireless network (see fig. 3 and par. 0048, DAG discover message is transmitted from the root device in par. 0048; a typical message has to include at least sender or origin and receiver or destination),
receive, via the transceiver (210 in fig. 2), first downlink data (multicast message 1140 in fig. 11 is in down paths, i.e., downlink) from a first node of the plurality of nodes (see flood in fig. 14; for instance, device 32 would receive multicast message 1140 from nodes 11, 12 and 13 or 21 or 22) via a first address separate from the multicast address during a second network time slot different from the first network time slot (see listening schedule fig. 7-10 in view of fig. 5; for instance, B3 in fig. 9A-B and see altogether in fig. 10 or B1 in fig. 8 or 920 in fig. 10),
receive, via the transceiver (210 in fig. 2), second downlink data (multicast message 1140 in fig. 11 is in down paths, i.e., downlink) from a second node of the plurality of nodes via a second address separate from the multicast address (see fig. 3 and par. 0048, DAG discover message is transmitted from the root device in par. 0048; a typical message has to include at least sender or origin and receiver or destination) and different from the first address during a third network time slot different from the first network time slot (see 910 in fig. 10).
Although Hui does not explicitly disclose: “transmit, via the transceiver, uplink data to the plurality of nodes using the multicast address during the first network time slot, wherein the device is a leaf node”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitations “transmit, via the transceiver, uplink data to the plurality of nodes using the multicast address during the first network time slot”, recall that in fig. 11 of Hui, going upward back to Root node is uplink and Hui explains DAO message (par. 0047) for the upward routing (fig. 11-15) and network interfaces (210 in fig. 2). Similarly, transmitting from a user device to a base station or an access point or a controller is uplink too. It can be seen in Igarashi. In particular, Igarashi teaches slot configuration data for frequency channel, multicast address and time slot for transmitting (fig. 3A-B) and a terminal device performing the handover to access to the data delivery system, i.e., including transmitting to AP (par. 0111-0112).
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 dynamic multicast mode of Hui by providing a slot configuration for streaming as taught in Igarashi. Such a modification would have provided a time slot configuration to allocate a frequency band/channel so that interference between overlapping cells could be avoided with different frequency channels as suggested in par. 0003-0004 of Igarashi.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “where in the device is a leaf node”, initially, it’s to note that a leaf node could be an intermediate node. However a leaf node, which could be with no child node in some conditions, is a child node itself, i.e., non-router node, and claim does not specifically define to exclude such leaf node or a child node. In fact, Hui depicts in fig. 4, nodes 41, 42, 43, 44 & 45 are leaf nodes without child node and nodes 31-34 are leaf nodes as well. This teaching from Hui could have rendered the amended claim limitation obvious as claim does not specifically exclude intermediate node and leaf node and leaf node without child node. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Wetterwald teaches a leaf node (non-router nodes in fig. 4 or 7, for instance, node 32) and the intermediate nodes (1520 in fig. 15 and par. 0105) for accepting the incoming frame (par. 076) for upward and downward (fig. 13A-C). What’s more, in fig. 8, Wetterwald teaches node 32 (fig. 4 or 7) assign slots in frame 802 as a leaf node or an intermediate node, performing as a parent, to child node as depicted fig. 8 for receiving and transmitting slots to child nodes 41 & 42 in fig. 4 & 7 for DAG 400.
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 dynamic multicast mode of Hui Igarashi by providing lightweight flow as taught in Wetterwald to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a lightweight flow in internet of things IoT networks or sensor networks to prevent collision or alternative routes in the networks so that changing environment conditions could have effectively adapted to lossy links, low bandwidth, low quality transceiver and battery operations, low memory and processing capability as suggested in par. 0003-0004 of Wetterwald.
Claim 5
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the second and third network time slots are dedicated time slots of a network frame for communicating over the wireless network (Hui, see timeslot schedule in fig. 7 and sub-timeslot scheduling in fig. 5; Igarashi, time slot dedicated to AP or terminals or segment as depicted in fig. 3-7; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive the first and second downlink data over a time slotted channel hopping (TSCH) protocol over the wireless network (Hui, par. 0054; Wetterwald, TSCH in par. 0057 & 0060-0062; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 9
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the multicast address and the first network time slot are assigned prior to the device joining the wireless network (Hui, fig. 5-10 for broadcasting and frequency assignment to root node and other nodes with time slot as shown in fig. 5 and active slot period in par. 0074; Igarashi, frequency channel and time slot are assigned as shown in fig. 3-7; since claim does not specifically define what are involved to performing the multicast address and time slot assigned prior to joining, one of ordinary skill in the art expect the prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F; see evidence in fig. 3 of Koleszar et al. Patent No.: US 9,179,475 B2).
Claim 10
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the multicast address and the first network time slot are assigned in response to the device joining the wireless network ((Hui, fig. 5-10 for broadcasting and frequency assignment to root node and other nodes with time slot as shown in fig. 5; Igarashi, frequency channel and time slot are assigned as shown in fig. 3-7; since claim does not specifically define what are involved to performing the multicast address and time slot assigned prior to joining, one of ordinary skill in the art expect the prior art to perform equally well to obtain the claimed invention, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G).
Claim 11
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first and second addresses and the second and third network time slots are assigned prior to the device joining the wireless network (Hui, fig. 5-10 for broadcasting and frequency assignment to root node and other nodes with time slot as shown in fig. 5; Igarashi, frequency channel and time slot are assigned as shown in fig. 3-7; since claim does not specifically define what are involved to performing the multicast address and time slot assigned prior to joining, one of ordinary skill in the art expect the prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 12
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first and second addresses and the second and third network time slots are assigned in response to the device joining the wireless network (Hui, fig. 5-10 for broadcasting and frequency assignment to root node and other nodes with time slot as shown in fig. 5; Igarashi, frequency channel and time slot are assigned as shown in fig. 3-7; since claim does not specifically define what are involved to performing the multicast address and time slot assigned prior to joining, one of ordinary skill in the art expect the prior art to perform equally well to obtain the claimed invention, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G).
Claim 13
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, after transmitting the uplink data to the plurality of nodes using the multicast address, retransmit the uplink data to the plurality of nodes using the multicast address (Hui, common broadcast schedule in fig. 8-10, it means if nothing changes, broadcasting slot configuration as shown in fig. 3 of Igarashi could be repeating the same configuration in the next broadcast slot, i.e., retransmit, such broadcasting with multicast address could be periodic and the multicast address could be seen in par. 0076 of Wetterwald; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claim to perform equally well with the prior art).
Claim 14
Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the device is a mobile robot (since claim does not specifically define what are required to be a mobile robot and what its functions, it could be interpreted to perform the same functions as mobile device of fig. 2 of Hui and the terminal device 300a-f in par. 0053 of Igarashi).
Claim 15 and 18-20
Claims 15 and 18-20 are method claims corresponding to device claims 1 and 9-13. All of the limitations of claim 15 and 18-20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 1 and 9-13 if claims are compared such that: claim 15 to claim 1, claims 18 to the combination of claims 9-10, claim 19 to the combination of claims 11-12 and claim 20 to claim 13. Accordingly, claims 15 and 18-20 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the claim rejection of claims 1 and 9-13, respectively set forth above.
6. Claims 2-4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Igarashi, Wetterwald and Liu et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0182860 A1.
Claim 2
Although Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald,, does not explicitly disclose: “the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive acknowledgements from the first and second nodes in response to the uplink data transmitted”, claim 2 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
In wireless communications, the use of acknowledgement is intrinsic feature in messaging. The prior art may not explicitly show the Ack but one of ordinary skill in the art could have typically applied it not to waste the network resource and energy of devices. The user of acknowledgements could be in Liu. In particular, Liu teaches a parent node for receiving ACK from the child nodes (fig. 2A) and a child node for sending ACK (fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image4.png
471
946
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 dynamic multicast mode of Hui in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald by providing hop-by-hop reliable multicast in wireless networks as taught in Liu to obtain the claimed invention. Such a modification would have included a multi-hop wireless mesh network to multicast hop-by-hop so that the reliable multicast transport service would be efficient and powerful as suggested in par. 0011-0012 of Liu.
Claim 3
Hui, in view Igarashi, Wetterwald and Liu, discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to receive the acknowledgements from the first and second nodes in a predetermined order (Hui, fig. 11-15; Igarashi, slot configuration, acknowledgements in fig. 2A-B of Liu; with these teachings from the prior art, ACK will arrive at a node or root node as slot configuration for transmitting and receiving and hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Although Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald,, does not disclose: “the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to discard the second downlink data in response to the second downlink data being a duplicate of the first downlink data”, claim 4 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, Hui, in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses duplicate detection (par. 0105 of Hui) and a filtering unit for discarding the segment data (par. 0146 & 0158). The combination of for performing two condition: discarding the received data if duplicated, could be seen in Liu. In particular, Liu teaches discarding the packet if the packet is not innovative (225-230 in fig. 2B and par. 0044).
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 dynamic multicast mode of Hui in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald by providing hop-by-hop reliable multicast in wireless networks as taught in Liu to obtain the claimed invention. Such a modification would have included a multi-hop wireless mesh network to multicast hop-by-hop so that the reliable multicast transport service would be efficient and powerful as suggested in par. 0011-0012 of Liu.
Claims 16-17
Claims 16-17 are method claims corresponding to device claims 2 & 4. Limitations of claims 16-17 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of claims 2 & 4. Accordingly, claims 16-17 can be considered obvious by the same rationales applied in the rejection of claims 2 & 4 respectively set forth above.
7. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald, evidenced by Gillies et al. Pub. No.: US 2005/0180356 A1.
Claim 21
Although Hui, in view Igarashi and Wetterwald, does not explicitly disclose: “the device of claim 1, wherein the second downlink data is a duplicate of the first downlink
data”, claim 21 is considered obvious by the following rationale.
Initially, Hui, in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald, discloses duplicate detection (par. 0105 of Hui). Since claim does not involve what are included in detecting the duplication such as address comparison or packet ID comparison, the combined prior art would have rendered the claim obvious. In the pertinent art, duplication detection has been used for a very long time and it’s become intrinsic feature in wired and wireless transmissions. The evidence could be seen in Gillies. In particular, Gillies teaches examining duplicate packet by its packet identifier and original source address (fig. 2 & 6 and par. 0070).
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 dynamic multicast mode of Hui in view of Igarashi and Wetterwald by providing multichannel wireless broadcast protocol as taught in Gillies to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a multichannel wireless broadcast protocol to broadcast a message without flooding in a wireless network so that the network connectivity is maintained and routing information become more reliable as suggested in par. 0013 of Gillies.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6-7 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights