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
Applicants’ arguments, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The inclusion of the suggested “broadcasting an index frame to notify the first secondary routing device and the second secondary routing device of the first transmission opportunity” does provide an practical application to the abstract ideas the independent claims, but the included “or a transmission sequence” potentially creates a situation where the “broadcasting” only notifies of an unrelated transmission sequence which would not be a practical application of the abstract ideas, but merely extra solution activity not related to the “allocation” abstract ideas.
It is suggested to applicant to change “or a transmission sequence” to “and a transmission sequence”. A similar change is suggested for claims 10 and 11.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to §102 have been considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of 4/7/2026 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-11, 15, 18, 20-21, 23-28 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… allocating a first transmission opportunity to the first secondary routing device… detecting that a second secondary routing device access a power line network… [and] allocating the first transmission opportunity to the second 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 necessarily integrated into a practical application because the practical application of “broadcasting an index frame to notify the first secondary routing device and the second secondary routing device of the first transmission opportunity or a transmission sequence” includes the alternative of “a transmission sequence” that is not related to usage of the abstract idea. 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.
Claims 10 and 11 and similarly rejected.
All claims dependent on independent claims 1, 10 and 11 are also rejected.
It is suggested to applicant to change “or a transmission sequence” to “and a transmission sequence”. A similar change is suggested for claims 10 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ayyagair et al. (US 2007/0025244) discloses a network in which allocated transmission time intervals are broadcast to notify network devices (para. 0095).
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.
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 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights