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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2, 4, 10, 14-21 under §112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Katar et al. (US 2015/0244632).
Claim Interpretation
Upon further consideration, independent claims 1 , 10 and 11 recite contingent limitations. Claims 1, 10, and 11 all recite “allocating a first transmission opportunity… when the first device access status is a first state, wherein the first state indicates that no user equipment access the first secondary routing device”. However, if the first device access status is not a first state, then the “allocating” step would not be performed. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these claimed limitations requires only steps that much be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
This reasoning also applies to contingent limitations found in dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 14-20, and 22.
With respect to apparatus claims 10 and 11, the claims still require the structure for performing the function should the condition occur. In this case, the structure for claims 10 and 11 includes “a memory [or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium] configured to store a computer program; and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the computer program to cause the primary routing device” to perform the programed functions. See prior art rejections below.
See MPEP 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “obtaining a first device access status… and allocating a first transmission opportunity to the first secondary routing device” which are functions/steps that are considered to be mental processes (receiving information, performing an allocation/selection based on the received information). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed abstract idea is not used in any practical way, and merely is an selection/assignment performed by the device that receives the information. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no improvement or transformation achieved by performing the recited abstract ideas.
It is suggested to applicant to amend the claims to include subject matter related to broadcasting/notifying secondary routing devices of the allocated transmission opportunity and/or resulting transmission sequence by using an index frame (MAP frame) (see para. 00188-00190 of the specification). Such subject matter would incorporate the practical application of generating a signal based on the abstract idea of the allocation, and transmitting the generated signal to notify other devices of the allocations.
Apparatus claims 10 and 11 merely specify that the abstract ideas are implemented with generic processors, memory/computer readable medium, and computer program instructions, which are not considered to be significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 14-15, 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katar et al. (US 2015/0244632).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 11, Katar discloses a power line communication method, applied to a primary routing device (including a processor, memory, software program; Fig. 1A, network device 102, connected to network device 104, PLC devices, para. 0025, 0102-0103, see also Fig. 10 with processor 1002 and memory 1006), and comprising:
obtaining a first device access status of a first secondary routing device (receive request for slot allocation information from a second network device step 302, Fig. 3, para. 0041-0042, received request indicates class of traffic/number of packets/etc. that will be transmitted by the second network device, i.e., “first device access status”; see also step 306 for “determining slot allocation information based on the received transmission information from the received request, indicating the hardware/system capability of Katar to allocate time slots to PLC network devices, with respect to claims 10 and 11); and
allocating a first transmission opportunity in a second time segment subsequent to a first time segment of a transmission management cycle to the first secondary routing device when the first device access status is a first state (contingent limitation, not given patentable weight, see explanation above),
wherein the first state indicates that no user equipment accesses the first secondary routing device (further specifies the contingent limitation, also not given patentable weight), and
wherein the first time segment and the second time segment are non-intersecting time segments (further specifies the contingent limitation, also not given patentable weight).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 22, the recited “wherein after obtaining the first device access status, the power line communication method further comprises allocating a second transmission opportunity in the first time segment and the first transmission opportunity to the first secondary routing device when the first device access status is a second state, wherein the second state indicates that a user equipment accesses the first secondary routing device” is a contingent limitation, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 2 is rejected in view of the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “wherein after allocating the first transmission opportunity…” in lines 1-2. Therefore, the rest of the subject matter is contingent on the allocating of claim 1 being performed. Claim 3 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 3 is rejected in view of the rejection claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “wherein after allocating the second transmission opportunity…” in lines 1-2, Therefore, the rest of the subject matter is contingent on the allocating of claims 1 and 2 being performed. Claim 4 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 4 is rejected in view of the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Katar further discloses wherein obtaining the first device access status comprises obtaining the first device access status through a status transmission channel, wherein the status transmission channel comprises one or more of a power line network, a BLUETOOTH connection, a Wi-Fi connection, a universal serial bus (USB) connection, or a network cable connection (network devices 102 and 104 implement wired or wireless communication protocols including PLC, WLAN, MOCA, para. 0041).
Claim 15 recites the primary routing device “allocate[s]… when a first status change notification is received from the first secondary routing device”, which is a contingent limitation. Claim 15 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 15 is rejected in view of the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 17 recites the primary routing device “allocate[s]… when a it is detected that a second secondary routing device access a power line network”, which is a contingent limitation. Claim 17 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 17 is rejected in view of the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 18 recites “allocate… when a third status change notification is received from the second secondary routing device,” which is a contingent limitations. Claim 18 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 18 is rejected in view of the rejection of claims 10 and 17.
Claim 19 recites “allocate… when it is detected that a second secondary routing devices access a power line network,” and “stop allocating…when a second device access status of the second secondary routing device is not obtained within a preset duration, or when a second device access status is a third state,” and “continue to allocate… when the third state indicates that no user equipment access the second secondary routing device” are all contingent limitations. Claim 19 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 19 is rejected in view of the rejection of claims 10.
Claim 20 recites “stop allocating… when the first secondary routing device disconnects from a power line network,” which is a contingent limitation. Claim 20 does not recite any non-contingent subject matter, and is not given patentable weight. Claim 20 is rejected in view of the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 4/3/2026