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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended the claims. Examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the previous rejections. While the amendments overcome the art rejections, these amendments also introduce 112 issues. Please see the rejections that follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 recites ‘…node that ha lowest calculated…’ It is believed this should read ‘…node that has lowest calculated…’ Please review all of your claims to ensure proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites ‘…Euclidian…’ It is believed this should read ‘…Euclidean…’ Please review all of your claims to ensure proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites ‘…means for cause the processor…’ This is grammatically incorrect. The correct grammar is ‘…means for causing the processor…’ Please review all of your claims to ensure proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Euclidean is misspelled (it is spelled as Euclidian) in for example para. 41 of the published spec, among other paragraphs. Please review your specification for spelling and grammatical errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites ‘…a means for cause the processor to execute the method of claim 1…’ This limitation uses the term “means for” and recites a function without reciting sufficient structure. Therefore, the limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) (See MPEP 2181(I)). The specification does not disclose the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed means. The closest disclosure, para. 162 of the published specification, merely recites generic “means for carrying out the computer-implemented method” and generic computer-program instructions, without clearly identifying corresponding structure linked to the claimed function. That is, the specification does not disclose a means for caus[ing] the processor to perform the algorithm of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim limitation is considered new matter. In order to overcome this rejection, it is recommended that Applicant claim ‘…a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1…’
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claims 1-12, claim 1 recites ‘said node’ However, the network described includes a plurality of nodes. Therefore, ‘said node’ is ambiguous. It is recommended that instead of ‘said node’ Applicant claim ‘the respective node’. Claims 2-12 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites five times ‘…the reference node…’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no reference node mentioned in claim 1, as amended.
Regarding claims 10-12, claim 10 recites two times ‘…the reference node…’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no reference node mentioned in claim 1, as amended. Claims 11-12 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 10 and have similar issues (in particular claim 12). Please proof read your claims.
Regarding claims 11-12, claim 11 recites ‘…the corresponding average quality indicator…’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no average quality indicator mentioned in claim 1, as amended.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites ‘…a means for cause the processor to execute the method of claim 1…’ This limitation uses the term “means for” and recites a function without reciting sufficient structure. Therefore, the limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) (See MPEP 2181(I)). Because this is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation the specification must disclose corresponding structure, i.e., a special-purpose computer programmed to perform a disclosed algorithm, and must clearly link that structure to the recited function. (See MPEP 2181(II)(B)) A review of the specification at paragraph 162 of the published specification reveals the invention provides a data processing device comprising means for carrying out the computer-implemented method and a computer program comprising instructions that cause the computer to carry out the method. This disclosure is insufficient because it merely identifies generic means, a generic computer program and generic instructions. It does not disclose a corresponding algorithm or clearly linked structure for the claimed “means for caus[ing] the processor to execute the method of claim 1.” That is, the algorithm is the steps of claim 1. The claim recites there is a means that causes the processor to execute the algorithm of claim 1. This is a generic computer program with generic instructions. In other words, although the specification describes routing operations and flowcharts, those disclosures are not clearly linked to the claimed means as corresponding structure for causing the processor to execute claim 1. A generic statement that software or instructions carry out the method does not satisfy 112(f). (See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333-34; Noah, 675 F.3d at 1318-19) Therefore, because claim 13 invokes 112(f) and the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure, including a clearly linked algorithm, claim 13 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention and is indefinite. (See MPEP 2181, 2185). In order to overcome this rejection, it is recommended that Applicant claim ‘…a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1…’
Regarding claims 13, claim 1, which claim 1 refers to, recites ‘said node’ However, the network described includes a plurality of nodes. Therefore, ‘said node’ is ambiguous. It is recommended that instead of ‘said node’ Applicant claim ‘the respective node’.
Regarding claims 14, claim 1, which claim 14 refers to, recites ‘said node’ However, the network described includes a plurality of nodes. Therefore, ‘said node’ is ambiguous. It is recommended that instead of ‘said node’ Applicant claim ‘the respective node’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mendes, P., et. al. “Information-centric Routing for Opportunistic Wireless Networks draft-mendes-icnrg-dabber-05” Network Working Group Internet-Draft; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mendes-icnrg-dabber/ 15 September 2020.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights