DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted February 4, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant notes that the previous Office action indicated a response to the September 18, 2023 communication (Remarks, p. 9). To clarify, the Examiner notes that the previous Office action was in response to the preliminary claim amendments submitted September 21, 2023.
Applicant argues that none of Nagaraja, Maric, or Huang teaches the claimed estimation function, stating there is no disclosure therein of considering “a current intermediate transmission delay” (Remarks, pp. 11-13). The Examiner has carefully considered this point, but respectfully notes this argument does not consider the combined teachings of the prior art references. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Nagaraja teaches determining current and/or intermediate metrics based on respective SINRs which are a function of traffic in the multi-hop network. These values from one or more devices are used to determine/estimate an overall control value/parameter for adjustment ([0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0046]). As previously set forth, Nagaraja does not explicitly state adjusting based on a maximum value exceeded. Therefore, Maric was cited to the extent this feature is not inherent to Nagaraja (for instance, because issuing commands are based on specific values being reached) ([0007]-[0009], [0033]-[0035], [0054]). The Examiner respectfully notes that Maric, in a similar field of endeavor, overlaps many of the teachings of Nagaraja, including obtaining channel quality state of relays (i.e. intermediate metrics) in a multi-hop network, and making overall adjustments accordingly. Huang was relied upon because Nagaraja modified by Maric does not explicitly state wherein the current metric is an “intermediate transmission delay,” and therefore estimating an “overall transmission delay” (figures 1-3 and [0064]-[0067]; note the overall delay requirements consider path and end-to-end determinations). Therefore, the combined system of Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang teaches the claimed estimation function.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that none of Nagaraja, Maric, or Jana teach the claimed “action message” of claim 11 (Remarks, pp. 14-15). The Examiner again respectfully notes that these are arguments against the references individually instead of the combination of references. For instance, Applicant argues the “message discussed in Jana does not comprise [each of the limitations of the received action message].” However, the previous rejection set forth that Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric does not explicitly state wherein the modification comprises at least a maximum number of relays greater than or equal to i and a rule for disabling retransmission of the radio signal received from the source node for a relay node located at a hop number greater than or equal to said maximum number of relays – these features were relied upon in Jana ([0032]). Upon careful review of these references, the Examiner respectfully maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate these features of Jana within the system of Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric, in order limit message distance.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2011/0149769 A1 (hereinafter “Nagaraja”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0195033 A1 (hereinafter “Maric”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0302832 A1 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claims 1 and 13: Nagaraja teaches a control method comprising: controlling a multi-hop transmission in a wireless communication network, said transmission being implemented by a system comprising a source node and a plurality of relay nodes configured to receive, amplify and retransmit a radio signal transmitted by the source node, wherein said controlling is implemented by a control device and comprises, for a current relay node of the plurality of relay nodes, placed at i hops from the source node, with i being a non-null integer (see, e.g., figure 1, [0039]):
obtaining for said current relay node a current strength ratio between a strength of the radio signal and a noise and interference strength received by said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0046]; SINR is obtained from respective relay nodes);
determining a current intermediate [communication metric] carried by said radio signal between said source node or a previous relay node located at i-1 hops and said current relay node, [as] a function of said obtained current strength ratio, a data volume received by said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0046]; communication metrics are determined based on respective SINRs);
estimating [control value and/or parameters] of the radio signal from the source node to a final relay node located at a number of hops N, with N being an integer greater than or equal to i, at least from the determined current intermediate [communication metric] and at least one [communication metric] previously determined for a relay node located at i-1 hops or less from the source node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0046]; determination for adjustment is made from received node metrics from one or more devices); and
in response to the estimated [control value and/or parameters] reaching or exceeding a given maximum [value], modifying a multi-hop transmission configuration of the system (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0046]; adjustments are made using control commands).
Nagaraja does not explicitly state adjusting based on a maximum value exceeded. To the extent this feature is not inherent to Nagaraja, it is nevertheless taught by Maric (see, e.g., [0007]-[0009], [0033]-[0035], [0054]; note threshold criteria). Maric, in a similar field of endeavor, overlaps many of the teachings of Nagaraja, including obtaining channel quality state of relays in a multi-hop network, and making adjustments accordingly (Id.). Also, to the extent Nagaraja does not inherently teach the claimed control device, Maric nevertheless teaches different options for control device implementation (see, e.g., [0036]; note implementation at a relay and/or at a central node). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Maric, such as the relay selection criteria and/or central node functionality, within the system of Nagaraja, in order to improve throughput and/or reliability in a multi-hop network.
Nagaraja modified by Maric does not explicitly state wherein the current metric is an “intermediate transmission delay,” estimating an “overall transmission delay,” nor basis on a transmission bandwidth. To the extent delay feature is not inherent to the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric (e.g. by virtue of the rate calculations therein), it, as well as the bandwidth feature are nevertheless taught in Huang (see, e.g., figures 1-3 and [0064]-[0067]; note overlapping teachings with respect to node selection in a multi-hop network, as well as, capacity requirements). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Huang, such as the relay selection criteria functionality, within the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric, in order to improve services to devices.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the device of claim 13.
Regarding claim 2: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang further teaches wherein the estimation of the overall transmission delay of said radio signal from the source node to the final relay node placed at the number of hops N is implemented once the strength ratios have been obtained and the intermediate transmission delays have been determined for the plurality of relay nodes participating in the transmission and wherein the modification of the configuration is applied for transmission of a next radio signal by the source node (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; Maric [0036]; and/or Huang [0064]-[0065]; note configuration for subsequent communications). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang further teaches wherein the estimation of the overall transmission delay of said radio signal from the source node to the final relay node located at the number of hops N is implemented following the strength ratio being obtained and the determination of the intermediate transmission delay for the current relay node, and wherein the modification of the configuration comprises sending an action message comprising at least the modified configuration and an order for application of said configuration by at least one relay node located at i+1 hops and more from the source node (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0009] – control command; Maric [0036] – corresponding instruction; and/or Huang [0064]-[0065]; note configuration for adjustment). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang further teaches wherein the relay nodes of said plurality transmit on a same frequency band and the estimation of the overall transmission delay comprises a summing of the intermediate transmission delays between the relay nodes placed at N hops and less from the source node (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0005]; note the explanation set forth above regarding claim 1).
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja, in view of Maric, in further view of Huang, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0299620 A1 (hereinafter “Gruenberg”).
Regarding claim 7: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang substantially teaches the method as set forth above regarding claim 6, but does not explicitly state wherein the overall transmission delay is expressed as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, this feature is taught by Gruenberg (see, e.g., [0012]-[0021]; note applicability of Shannon-Hartley to cumulative channels). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Gruenberg, such as the link analysis functionality, within the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric, in order to improve end-to-end delay.
8. Claims 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja, alternatively in further view of Maric, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0343200 A1 (hereinafter “Jana”).
Regarding claims 11 and 14: Nagaraja teaches a processing method comprising: processing a multi-hop transmission in a wireless communication network, said transmission being implemented by a system comprising a source node and a plurality of relay nodes configured to receive, amplify and retransmit a radio signal transmitted by the source node, wherein said processing is implemented by a device and comprises, for a current relay node of the plurality of relay nodes, placed at i hops from the source node, with i being a non-null integer (see, e.g., figure 1, [0039]):
transmitting to a control device of the wireless communication network at least one strength of a radio signal and a noise and interference strength received by said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; SINR is obtained from respective relay nodes); and
receiving from said control device an action message comprising at least one multi-hop transmission configuration modification of said system and an order to apply said modification (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; adjustments are made in and/or for control commands).
Nagaraja teaching transmitting to a control device (e.g., another AP). Alternatively, and/or to the extent the particular control device is not inherent to the system of Nagaraja, it is nevertheless taught in Maric (see, e.g., [0007]-[0008], [0036]; a control device, such as another relay or a central node, obtains channel quality criteria, such as SINR measurements from respective relay nodes; note overlapping teachings with Nagaraja). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Maric, such as the relay selection criteria and/or central node functionality, within the system of Nagaraja, in order to improve throughput and/or reliability in a multi-hop network.
Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric does not explicitly state wherein the modification comprises at least a maximum number of relays greater than or equal to i and a rule for disabling retransmission of the radio signal received from the source node for a relay node located at a hop number greater than or equal to said maximum number of relays. However, this feature is taught by Jana (see, e.g., [0032]; note messaging with respect to hop level and/or TTL value). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Jana, such as the indication functionality, within the system of Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric, in order limit message distance.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 11 is applicable to the device of claim 14.
Regarding claim 12: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Jana further teach a method of a multi-hop transmission according to the preceding claim11,characterised in that it wherein the method further comprises deciding to execute the application order included in the message when the number of hops i from the relay node is greater than the maximum number of relays received (see, e.g., Jana [0032]; note also the explanation set forth above regarding claim 11). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 11 is applicable to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-5 and 8-10 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
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476