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 claims 1-16, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on 1/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that electronic searching is routinely employed and searching for the claims of groups I and II would thus not be burdensome. Applicant also argues that group I claims recite features directed to “determining a master node” claims of group II are directed to “determining a master node”. This is not found persuasive because applicant does not clearly state how the combination and subcombination are not distinct. The MPEP clearly states in 806.05(c) II A, the criteria for distinctness between combination and subcombination, and as the restriction requirement clearly stated, the claimed subcombination (Bsp) of group II is not essential to the combination of group II (ABr) and thus restriction is proper. Claims of group I are drawn to a method for transmitting and receiving data based on distributed beamforming (A) along with a broad reference to “determining a master” (Bbr) and claims of group II claim the detailed steps to “determine a master” (Bsp). The office action further states according to MPEP 808.02 why the claims drawn to distinct combination-subcombination pose a serios search burden. Electronic searching as argued by applicants is not the bar for establishing lack of burden. The office action clearly states how the fields of search are different, as set forth MPEP 808.02 to establish serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 20 is 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. The term “ the node determination frame” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear from the claim language what the applicant is trying to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 20140301494 A1), hereinafter, Hsu, in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190174149 A1), hereinafter, Zhang.
Regarding claim 1:
Hsu discloses a method for transmitting and receiving data based on distributed beamforming performed by a distributed beamforming-based data transmission and reception system (Fig. 1 with nodes 105 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraphs [0058], ][0059]) including a plurality of distributed nodes (Fig. 1, nodes 105), the method comprising:
determining a master node among the plurality of nodes (Paragraph [0053], selecting master node is claimed determining master node);
forming a data transmission and reception channel (Fig. 1, array links 120) based on a signal reception level between the master node and a slave node (Paragraphs [0053], [0054], selected master node communicates with other nodes 105 using array links 120 (claimed forming of transmission and reception channels) when nodes 105 are within line-of-sight (LoS) i.e. based on signal reception level between the master and slave node); and
transmitting and receiving data between the master node and the slave node through the formed data transmission and reception channel (Paragraphs [0046], [0053]-[0057]).
Hsu discloses ground based and airborne operations with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (Paragraph [0143]), but fails to explicitly disclose the system including:
ground operation equipment and the determining the master node among the plurality of nodes through the ground operation equipment (Paragraph [0126], ground station selects a new master UAV, claimed step of determining).
However, Zhang discloses a method for transmitting and receiving data data transmission and reception system (Fig. 5) including ground operation equipment (Fig. 5, ground station 518 and control hub 520) and a plurality of distributed nodes (Fig. 5, UAVs 512), the method comprising:
determining a master node among the plurality of nodes through the ground operation equipment (Paragraph [0126], ground station selects a new master UAV, claimed step of determining).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Hsu’s system include ground operation equipment and the determining the master node among the plurality of nodes through the ground operation equipment as disclosed by Zhang. It would have been obvious because Zhang’s method of using the ground operation to determine master ensures UAVs/ plurality of nodes can be operated in a safe manner.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected as being obvious over Hsu in view of Zhang based on the rationale used to reject claim 1 above. Hsu further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that cause, when executed by one or more processors, the one or more processors to perform the method (Paragraph [0164]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stein et al. (US 20200099441 A1), hereinafter, Stein.
Regarding claim 2:
Hsu and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above,
Hsu further discloses determining the master node among the plurality of nodes and determining remaining nodes other than the master node as slave nodes (Paragraph [0027], [0127]).
but fail to explicitly disclose determining the master node among the plurality of nodes based on at least one of location information of each node, a transmission bandwidth, or a modulation coding scheme (MCS) level used in a wireless link.
However, Stein discloses determining the master node among the plurality of nodes based on at least one of location information of each node, a transmission bandwidth, or a modulation coding scheme (MCS) level used in a wireless link (Paragraph [0045], drone is selected (i.e. determined) as master if it is closest to an aircraft, i.e. location information of each node is taken into account to determine the closest as select it as master).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Zhang and Stein as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Iyoda (US 20050188087 A1), hereinafter, Iyoda.
Regarding claim 3:
Hsu, Zhang and Stein disclose all the limitations of claim 2 above, but fail to explicitly disclose the method, wherein the master node comprises two or more master nodes, and wherein the slave nodes are allocated to corresponding to each master nodes respectively.
However, Iyoda discloses the method, wherein the master node comprises two or more master nodes (Paragraphs [0229]-[0231], master 2 (claimed master node) comprises parent master 801 and child master nodes 803 (one or more plurality of master nodes) )and wherein the slave nodes are allocated to corresponding to each master nodes respectively (Paragraph [0230], each child master has a plurality of slaves 804).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hsu’s method as modified by Zhang and Stein would be further modified so that the master node comprises two or more master nodes, and wherein the slave nodes are allocated to corresponding to each master nodes respectively as disclosed by Iyoda. It would have been obvious because
Iyoda’s method results in parallel processing that is speedy and has improved efficiency (Paragraph [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635