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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I, claims 2-4, 10-13, 19-20 in the reply filed on 7-7-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the elements of the allegedly distinct species are capable of use together, the inventions of the various claims are not independent. This is not found persuasive because MPEP § 806.06 is not the only metric used for restriction. For example, MPEP § 806.05 recites that species capable of been used together can still be restricted, as long the inventions as claimed are distinct; and the species are distinct as disclosed in the restriction of record since they can be used independently.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyanasundaram 9002634 in view of Macfarlane 20180184395.
As to claim 1, Kalyanasundaram discloses a system comprising:
a memory [510] that stores instructions [515] (see col. 9, line 59 – col. 10, line 24); and
one or more processors [505] configured by the instructions to perform operations comprising (see col. 9, lines 39-58):
accessing a graph [map] that indicates wireless network connectivity in each of a plurality of regions (see col. 3, lines 5-20);
accessing a map that indicates physical paths among the plurality of regions (see col. 3, lines 21-38); and
selecting a physical path from an origin location to a destination location based on the graph and the map [selected route uses map data with wireless coverage data to avoid dropped communication] (see col. 11, lines 29-46). Kalyanasundaram fails to disclose the details about the graph or map. In an analogous art, Macfarlane discloses the graph comprising a plurality of nodes [A-G] representing each of the plurality of regions, the graph comprising a plurality of edges that connect pairs of nodes (see fig. 1A-1H, 3), each edge having a value that corresponds to a cost [distance time, etc.] between the regions represented by the connected pair of nodes (see par. 0064-0065, 0078-0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to find the most desired route such as shortest, fastest, best connectivity and/or combinations; thereby, improving customer satisfaction.
As to claims 2-4, Kalyanasundaram discloses everything as claimed above except for wherein the cost corresponds to a distance or travel time between the regions represented by the connected pair of nodes. In an analogous art, Macfarlane discloses wherein the cost corresponds to a distance between the regions represented by the connected pair of nodes or wherein the cost corresponds to a travel time between the regions represented by the connected pair of nodes. (see par. 0064-0065, 0078-0079); wherein: the value is a first value; the cost is a first cost; the graph is a digraph [directed graph] (see par. 0048); and a first edge of the plurality of edges has a second value cost [distance time, etc.] that corresponds to a second cost between the regions represented by the connected pair of nodes, the first cost and the second cost being different (see par. 0064-0065, 0078-0079, 0096-0099).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings to find the most desired route such as shortest, fastest, best connectivity and/or combinations; thereby, improving customer satisfaction.
Regarding claims 10-13, they are the corresponding method claims of system claims 1-4. Therefore, claims 10-13 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 18-20, they are the corresponding non-transitory machine-readable medium claims of system claims 1-3. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights