DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because the term RX and TX were not completely stated out on first use. Any abbreviation or shortened representations of a term should be spelled out completely upon its first use in each claim branch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
In event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al, (U.S. PGPub 2013/0315078), Brown hereinafter, in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0195728), Chen hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Brown teaches a communication method for a wireless ad hoc network, wherein the wireless ad hoc network comprises a plurality of nodes, wherein the wireless ad hoc network is a time-slotted barrage relay network, wherein each node comprises an RX circuit being configured to receive data packages based on time division multiple access (TDMA) frames, wherein each node comprises a TX circuit being configured to transmit data packages based on TDMA frames, and wherein the TDMA frames comprise time slots that are unambiguously assigned to one of the nodes, respectively, the communication method comprising the steps of (fig. 1 and paragraphs 0013 to 0015 discloses ad hoc network of plurality of nodes. [0013] … applicable to time-slotted barrage relay networks. In particular, time is divided into frames, which are further divided into M slots per frame (FIG. 1 employs 3 slots per frame labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”). ... -[0014] In one embodiment, for example, the central node 101 transmits a packet on slot A of the first TDMA frame. ... )
transmitting, by at least one node of the plurality of nodes, at least one data package in a subset of time slots of a TDMA frame, respectively, wherein the subset of time slots is assigned to a subset of nodes of the plurality of nodes; and (paragraph 0013 - FIG. 1 illustrates an ad hoc network where independent medium allocations are obtained via a time-division multiple access (TDMA) scheme. While barrage relay networks can be defined according to a plethora of different medium allocation schemes (e.g., time slotting, different frequency channels, different antenna radiation patterns, low cross-correlation spreading sequences), the present invention is especially applicable to time-slotted barrage relay networks. In particular, time is divided into frames, which are further divided into M slots per frame (FIG. 1 employs 3 slots per frame labeled "A", "B", and "C"). The value of M is denoted the "spatial pipelining factor" in the follow paragraphs. The data that is transmitted in a given time slot is denoted a "packet." Two packets that are transmitted by two different nodes are said to be identical if all data--including all protocol header information--contained in the respective packets is identical.)
Yet, Brown does not expressly teach deactivating, by the at least one node, the RX circuit and/or the TX circuit of the at least one node during the subset of time slots of subsequent TDMA frames.
However, in the analogous art, Chen explicitly discloses deactivating, by the at least one node, the RX circuit and/or the TX circuit of the at least one node during the subset of time slots of subsequent TDMA frames (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0017 to 0022 discloses dynamic deactivation and activation of nodes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Brown’s Method and System For On-Demand Adaptation of Packet Time-To-Live In Time-Slotted Barrage Relay Networks to include Chen's dynamic activation and deactivation of nodes to adapt the network to desirable condition.
Regarding Claim 4, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein the subset of nodes comprises the at least one node and/or nodes being arranged upstream of the at least one node (fig. 1 discloses Node 126 and Node 134 to be upstream of Node 115, other examples of nodes arranged upstream of other nodes are also present in the diagram).
Regarding Claim 5, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein management data is provided and processed in the time slots assigned to the subset of nodes, respectively, wherein the management data comprises configuration information and/or location information associated with the respective node (paragraph 0020 discloses use of Hop Count field and Time to Live TTL ( a management data) incorporated into the data packet in the time slots -[0020] … a time-to-live (TTL) field and a hop count (HC) field. The TTL field is unchanged by relaying nodes while the HC field is set to 1 by the source of a packet and incremented upon relay. … )
Regarding Claim 6, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein the at least one node transmits data packages received from different other nodes during a single TDMA frame in the subsequent TDMA frame (paragraph 0014 - In one embodiment, for example, the central node 101 transmits a packet on slot A of the first TDMA frame. All nodes that successfully receive this packet are, by definition, one hop away from the source. These nodes are labeled 111, 112, . . . , 117 in FIG. 1. These nodes transmit the same packet on slot B, thus relaying to nodes that are 2 hops away from the source ( nodes 121, 122, . . . , 129), which in turn transmit the same packet on slot C. Nodes that are 3 hops away from the source ( nodes 131, 132, . . . , 137) relay the packet on slot A of the second TDMA frame. In this way, packets transmit outward from the source via a decode-and-forward approach.).
Regarding Claim 7, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein the TDMA frames comprise data transmission time slots for transmitting payload data, respectively (paragraph 0013 - … the present invention is especially applicable to time-slotted barrage relay networks. In particular, time is divided into frames, which are further divided into M slots per frame (FIG. 1 employs 3 slots per frame labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”). The value of M is denoted the “spatial pipelining factor” in the follow paragraphs. The data that is transmitted in a given time slot is denoted a “packet.” Two packets that are transmitted by two different nodes are said to be identical if all data—including all protocol header information—contained in the respective packets is identical. ).
Regarding Claim 8, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein the payload data corresponds to image data, video data, audio data, and/or language data (paragraph 0011 - … many important MANET applications (e.g., voice and video transmission in military and first responder networks). … ).
Regarding Claim 9, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein the wireless ad hoc network comprises a plurality of nodes, wherein the wireless ad hoc network is a time-slotted barrage relay network, wherein each node comprises an RX circuit being configured to receive data packages based on time division multiple access (TDMA) frames, wherein each node comprises a TX circuit being configured to transmit data packages based on TDMA frames, wherein the TDMA frames comprise time slots that are unambiguously assigned to one of the nodes, respectively, and wherein the wireless ad hoc network is configured to perform the communication method according to claim 1. (fig. 1 and paragraphs 0013 to 0015 discloses ad hoc network of plurality of nodes. [0013] … applicable to time-slotted barrage relay networks. In particular, time is divided into frames, which are further divided into M slots per frame (FIG. 1 employs 3 slots per frame labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”). ... -[0014] In one embodiment, for example, the central node 101 transmits a packet on slot A of the first TDMA frame. ... )
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al, (U.S. PGPub 2013/0315078), Brown hereinafter, in view of Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0195728), Chen hereinafter and further in view of Sengodan (U.S. PGPub 2002/0054596), Sengodan hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 2, Brown in view of Chen teaches claim 1.
Brown further teaches wherein management data is provided and processed in the time slots assigned to the subset of nodes, respectively, (paragraph 0020 discloses use of Hop Count field and Time to Live TTL ( a management data) incorporated into the data packet in the time slots -[0020] … a time-to-live (TTL) field and a hop count (HC) field. The TTL field is unchanged by relaying nodes while the HC field is set to 1 by the source of a packet and incremented upon relay. … )
Yet, Brown in view of Chen does not expressly teach wherein the management data comprises a remaining hop count portion, wherein the remaining hop count portion comprises information on a remaining hop count for the management data associated with the respective node, and wherein a value of the remaining hop count is decreased at each hop by the respective node.
However, in the analogous art, Sengodan explicitly discloses wherein the remaining hop count portion comprises information on a remaining hop count for the management data associated with the respective node, and wherein a value of the remaining hop count is decreased at each hop by the respective node (paragraph 0071 - ... . The Hop Count 410 is used to determine whether the message propagates any further or not. Every node of the multicast tree that receives the request message decrements the Hop Count by one, and if the resulting value is not zero, it forwards it down the multicast tree.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Brown’s Method and System for On-Demand Adaptation of Packet Time-To-Live In Time-Slotted Barrage Relay Networks to include Sengodan's hop countdown to set node limit for sent packets.
Regarding Claim 3, Brown in view of Chen and further in view of Sengodan teaches claim 2.
Chen further teaches wherein the RX circuit and/or the TX circuit are reactivated for the subset of time slots after a number of TDMA frames corresponding to the remaining hop count have elapsed (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0017 to 0022 discloses dynamic deactivation and activation of nodes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. PGPUB 2009/0135824 which describes route selection in wireless networks
U.S. PGPUB 2020/0236607 which describes controlling data communication quality in software-defined heterogenous multi-hop ad hoc networks
U.S. PGPUB 2022/0070858 which describes multi-channel time-division multiplexing access methods and systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AYODELE OLUBODUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5462. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am - 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
/A.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472