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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 12/08/2025 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0149856 to Hui et al.
a. As per claim 1, Hui et al teaches a route information processing method, applied to a target node in a first network, wherein the first network adopts a first topology structure which is a tree topology structure (See paragraph [0003, 0035 ]), an address of each node other than a root node in the first topology structure comprises a first part including an address of a parent node of the node, and different nodes have different addresses (See paragraph [0067]) and the method comprises: based on the first topology structure being changed to a second topology structure, (See paragraph [0066]) adding, by the target node, first route information, wherein the first route information comprises an address of a in the second topology structure that the target node is destined for (See paragraph [0075]), first node and an address of a next hop of the target node in the second topology structure, wherein the next hop of the target node is towards the first node in the second topology structure, wherein an address of a parent node of the first node in the first topology structure is different from an address of the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure and wherein an address of the next hop of the target node in the first topology structure is different from the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0038 and 0041], Nodes that are not capable of maintaining routing state, however, may attach a next-hop parent address. The DAO message is then sent directly to the DODAG root that can in turn build the topology and locally compute downward routes to all nodes in the DODAG)
b. As per claim 11, Hui et al teaches a communication apparatus as a target node, comprising a processor and an interface circuit, wherein the target node is in a first network, wherein the first network initially adopts a first topology structure which is a tree topology structure (See paragraph [0003 and 0035]), an address of each node other than a root node om the first topology structure comprises a first part including an address of a parent node of the node, and different nodes have different addresses (See paragraph [0067]); the interface circuit is configured to receive computer-executable instructions, and transmit the computer-executable instructions to the processor (See paragraph [0066]); and the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, which enables the communication apparatus to perform a method including: based on the first topology structure being changed to a second topology structure, (See paragraph [0075]), adding, first route information, wherein the first route information comprises an address of a first node in the second topology structure that the target node is destined for, and an address of a next hop of the target node in the second topology structure, wherein the next hop of the target node is towards the first node in the second topology structure, wherein an address of a parent node of the first node in the first topology structure is different from an address of the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure, and wherein an address of the next hop of the target node in the first topology structure is different from the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure.( (See paragraph [0038 and 0041], Nodes that are not capable of maintaining routing state, however, may attach a next-hop parent address. The DAO message is then sent directly to the DODAG root that can in turn build the topology and locally compute downward routes to all nodes in the DODAG).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
6. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0149856 to Hui et al in view of U.S. Publication no. 2014/0269413 to Hui et al.
a. AS per claims 2 and 12, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the target node is any node in a target node set, and the target node set comprises a first-type node, a second- type node, and a third-type nodes; wherein the first-type node is the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure; the second-type node is an ancestor node of the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure, and a next hop of the second-type node that is in the second topology structure and is towards for the first node in the second topology structure is different from a next hop of the second-type node that is in the first topology structure and is towards for the first node in the first topology structure; and the third-type node is an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, and the third-type node is not an ancestor node of the first node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0055-0058 and 0060-0062] and figures 4-5).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein the target node is any node in a target node set, and the target node set comprises a first-type node, a second- type node, and a third-type nodes; wherein the first-type node is the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure; the second-type node is an ancestor node of the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure, and a next hop of the second-type node that is in the second topology structure and is towards for the first node in the second topology structure is different from a next hop of the second-type node that is in the first topology structure and is towards for the first node in the first topology structure; and the third-type node is an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, and the third-type node is not an ancestor node of the first node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0055-0058 and 0060-0062] and figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
b. As per claims 3 and 13, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the target node is the first- type node, and in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure is the address of the first node in the second topology structure
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein the target node is the first- type node, and in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure is the address of the first node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0044 and 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
c. As per claims 4 and 14, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprising : receiving, by the target node, first information from the first node, wherein the first information indicates that the first node in the second topology structure is a child node of the target node in the second topology structure; (See paragraph [0035]); and adding, by the target node, the first route information based on the first information (See paragraph [0038-0039]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein the method further comprising : receiving, by the target node, first information from the first node, wherein the first information indicates that the first node in the second topology structure is a child node of the target node in the second topology structure; (See paragraph [0035]); and adding, by the target node, the first route information based on the first information (See paragraph [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
d. As per claims 5 and 15, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein after the adding, by the target node, the first route information, the method further comprises: based on the target node not being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, second information to a parent node of the target node, wherein the second information indicates that a next hop of the parent node of a second node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node in the second topology structure is the target node;
or based on the target node being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, third information to a first child node of the target node in the first topology structure, wherein the third information indicates that a next hop of the first child node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node in the second topology structure is a parent node of the first child node in the second topology structure, and the first child node is a next hop of the target node that is in the first topology structure and destined for the first node in the first topology structure (See paragraph [0038 and 0047]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
e. As per claims 6 and 16, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the target node is the second-type node, and the in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure is the same as an address of a further next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure and that is destined for the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure.
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein the target node is the second-type node, and the in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node in the second topology structure is the same as an address of a further next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure and that is destined for the parent node of the first node in the second topology structure(See paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
f. As per claims 7 and 17, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprising: receiving, by the target node, fourth information from a child node of the target node in the second topology structure, wherein the fourth information indicates that a next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure is the child node of the target node: update, by the target node, the first route information based on the fourth information, wherein the first route information comprises the address of the first node in the second topology structure and an address of the child node of the target node (See paragraph [0054, 0063-0064]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein the method further comprising: receiving, by the target node, fourth information from a child node of the target node in the second topology structure, wherein the fourth information indicates that a next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure is the child node of the target node: update, by the target node, the first route information based on the fourth information, wherein the first route information comprises the address of the first node in the second topology structure and an address of the child node of the target node (See paragraph [0054, 0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
g. As per claims 8 and 18, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein after the update, by the target node, the first route information, the method further comprises: based on the target node is-not being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, fifth information to a parent node of the target node, wherein the fifth information indicates that a next hop of the parent node of the target node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is the target node; or based on the target node being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, sixth information to a second child node of the target node in the first topology structure, wherein the sixth information indicates that a next hop of the second child node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is a parent node of the second child node in the second topology structure, and the second child node is a next hop of the target node that is in the first topology structure and destined for the first node (See paragraph [0044 and 0048-0049]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches wherein after the update, by the target node, the first route information, the method further comprises: based on the target node is-not being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, fifth information to a parent node of the target node, wherein the fifth information indicates that a next hop of the parent node of the target node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is the target node; or based on the target node being an ancestor node of the first node in the first topology structure, sending, by the target node, sixth information to a second child node of the target node in the first topology structure, wherein the sixth information indicates that a next hop of the second child node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is a parent node of the second child node in the second topology structure, and the second child node is a next hop of the target node that is in the first topology structure and destined for the first node (See paragraph [0044 and 0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
h. As per claims 9 and 19, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the target node is the third- type node, and in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node is an address of a parent node of the target node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0038]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches teach wherein the target node is the third- type node, and in the first route information, the address of the next hop of the target node is an address of a parent node of the target node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
i. As per claims 10 and 20, Hui et al (‘856) teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Hui et al (‘856) fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprising: receiving, by the target node, seventh information from a parent node of the target node in the first topology structure, wherein the seventh information indicates that a next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is the parent node of the target node in the second topology structure; and update, by the target node, the first route information based on the seventh information, wherein the first route information comprises the address of the first node in the second topology structure and the address of the parent node of the target node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0044-0045 and 0048-0049]).
Hui et al (‘413) teaches teach wherein the method further comprising: receiving, by the target node, seventh information from a parent node of the target node in the first topology structure, wherein the seventh information indicates that a next hop of the target node that is in the second topology structure and destined for the first node is the parent node of the target node in the second topology structure; and update, by the target node, the first route information based on the seventh information, wherein the first route information comprises the address of the first node in the second topology structure and the address of the parent node of the target node in the second topology structure (See paragraph [0044-0045 and 0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Hui et al (‘413) in the claimed invention of Hui et al (‘856) in order to provide topology that emphasize reduced number of hops or increases route stability.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights