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 1-8 and 10-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant acknowledges the cited prior art teaches adjusting parameters of a relay based on metrics, but argues this prior art fails to teach mechanisms related to an “overall transmission rate” (Remarks, p. 10). The Examiner has carefully reviewed the references, but respectfully disagrees. For instance, while Nagaraja was cited for teaching estimation functionality utilized from strength measurement ratios previously obtained for relay nodes located between the source node and said current relay node, the previous Office action indicated Nagaraja does not explicitly state estimating an “overall transmission rate,” and therefore relied upon Maric for this feature. Upon review, the Examiner maintains that Maric teaches considerations of end-to-end data rate criteria ([0007]-[0008], [0033]-[0036]), and further that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate these features within the system of Nagaraja, in order to improve throughput and/or reliability in a multi-hop network.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 are not persuasive.
Applicant also argues neither Reza nor Shi teaches messaging that includes a number of hops and checking based on this number (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner has also carefully reviewed these references, but respectfully disagrees. Both Reza and Shi teach messaging that indicates a hop value for the purpose of hop determination (e.g. Reza pp.8-9; and/or Shi [0118]-[0123]). The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the respective indication functionality from either Reza or Shi within the system of Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric, in order to ensure message applicability.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5 and 8 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, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 15 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, 6, and 7: Nagaraja teaches a control method comprising:
controlling a multi-hop transmission in a wireless communication network, said transmission implementing a plurality of relay nodes of said wireless communication network, a relay node, referred to as a current relay node of said plurality, located at i hops, with i a non-null integer, being configured to receive from a source node or from a previous relay node located at hop i-1, a radio signal carrying a data volume transmitted by said source node, to amplify the radio signal and to retransmit the radio signal to a next relay node, placed at i+1 hops (see, e.g., figure 1, [0039]), wherein the controlling is implemented by a control device and comprises:
obtaining for said current relay node a current strength ratio between a strength of the radio signal and a noise and interference strength, at said current relay node, received and measured by said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; SINR is obtained from respective relay nodes);
estimating [control value and/or parameters] between the source node and a destination node located at a number of hops N, with N an integer greater than or equal to i, at least from the current strength ratio, from strength measurement ratios previously obtained for relay nodes located between the source node and said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; determination for adjustment is made from received node metrics); and
adjusting at least one data transmission parameter of at least the source node and/or one said relay node participating in the multi-hop transmission (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; adjustments are made using control commands).
Nagaraja teaches estimating parameters between the source node and a destination node located at a number of hops N, with N an integer greater than or equal to i, at least from the current strength ratio, from strength measurement ratios previously obtained for relay nodes located between the source node and said current relay node (Id.). However, Nagaraja does not explicitly state estimating an “overall transmission rate” or basing adjustment on a differing rate. However, Maric teaches a system that overlaps many of the teachings of Nagaraja (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), as well as estimating an overall transmission rate (see, e.g., [0007]-[0008], [0033]-[0036]; an end-to-end data rate criteria us utilized). 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 a basis on “transmission bandwidth.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric, it is 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 medium and device of claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claims 10, 12, and 14: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang further teaches wherein the control device is integrated into the source node (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; Maric [0036]; and/or Huang [0064]-[0065]; note optional node implementation).
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 10 is applicable to the medium and device of claims 12 and 14, respectively.
Regarding claim 15: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang further teaches wherein the control device is integrated into a relay node of said plurality of relay nodes (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; Maric [0036]; and/or Huang [0064]-[0065]; note optional node implementation). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claims 7 is applicable to claim 15.
7. Claims 2 and 11 are 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 either U.S. Publication No. 2010/0128622 A1 (hereinafter “Horiuchi”) or U.S. Publication No. 2021/0227626 A1 (hereinafter “Thommana”).
Regarding claim 2: Nagaraja modified by Maric and Huang substantially teaches the method as set forth above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein, when the number of hops N at which is located the node is greater than i, the method comprises a prediction of the strength ratios of the relay nodes located between i+1 and N hops and the estimate of the overall transmission rate at the destination node takes into account the predicted strength ratios. However, this feature is taught by Horiuchi (see, e.g., [0150]-[0154]). 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 Horiuchi, such as the prediction functionality, within the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric, in order to improve path selection.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Thommana (see, e.g., [0040]-[0045]). 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 Thommana, such as the prediction functionality, within the system of Nagaraja modified by Maric, in order to improve path selection.
Regarding claim 11: Nagaraja modified by Maric, Huang, and either Horiuchi or Thommana, further teaches wherein the control device is integrated into a relay node of said plurality of relay nodes (see, e.g., Nagaraja [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; Maric [0036]; and/or Huang [0064]-[0065]; note optional node implementation). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claims 1 and 2 is applicable to claim 11.
8. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja, alternatively in view of Maric, and in further view of either WO Publication No. 2012/060686 A1 (hereinafter “Reza”) or U.S. Publication No. 2020/0252853 A1 (hereinafter “Shi”).
Regarding claims 5 and 8: Nagaraja teaches a method comprising: processing a multi-hop transmission of a radio signal transmitted by a source node in a wireless communication network, said transmission implementing a plurality of relay nodes of said wireless communication network, a relay node located at a number of hops i from the source node, with i a non-null integer, being configured to receive said radio signal from said source node or from a previous relay node, of rank i-1, to amplify the radio signal and to retransmit the radio signal to a next relay node, of rank i+1 (see, e.g., figure 1, [0039]), wherein the processing is performed by a current relay node of the plurality of relay nodes and comprises:
transmitting to a control device a strength of the radio signal and a noise and interference strength at the current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; SINR is obtained from respective relay nodes),
received by the current relay node; receiving from said control device an action message in the wireless communication network comprising an action for adjusting at least one data transmission parameter within the multi-hop transmission (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; adjustments are made in and/or for control commands); and
performing the adjustment action contained in said action message, when the adjustment action is intended for said current relay node (see, e.g., [0007]-[0010], [0038]-[0043]; adjustments are made using 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 the feature wherein the action message includes “at least one number of hops” and “verifying that the adjustment action is intended for said current relay node, comprising verifying that the number of hops of the current relay node corresponds to at least one said number of hops comprised in said action message.” However, this feature is taught by Reza (see, e.g., p. 8, lines 14-23). 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 Reza, such as the message field functionality, within the system of Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric, in order to ensure message applicability.
Alternatively to Reza, the said feature is taught in Shi (see, e.g., [0118]-[0123]). 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 Shi, such as the message field functionality, within the system of Nagaraja alternatively modified by Maric, in order to ensure message applicability.
The rationale set forth above regarding the method of claim 5 is applicable to the device of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3 and 4 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
Prosecution Insights