DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on June 25, 2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b) filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (see pp. 11 of Applicant’s remarks): “As to claim 4, for S31, ‘extracting data sets ...’ was described in the specification, all collected data packets are partitioned into superframes according to the superframe period (Specification, [0071]-[0073])”.
However, first, the limitation “wherein all collected data packets are extract into superframes”, is grammatically unclear, which itself raises confusion when reading the limitation. Secondly, neither the claims nor the specification uses the term “partition”, nor are the terms the same. “Partition” means to “divide into parts”, whereas “extract” means to “remove or take out”. Therefore, as opposed to simply dividing, partitioning, assembling, or otherwise organizing the collected data packets into superframes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need further explanation of Applicant’s process for extracting data packets into superframes, to properly understand the full scope of the “extract[ed] into” limitation.
With respect to Applicant’s further argument (see pp. 11-12): “As to claim 5, firstly, the specification explicitly recites that a validation set is constructed and used for model validation ([0018], [0089])”, however, the cited paragraphs [0018], [0089] simply repeat the stated function (i.e., “performing validation based on a predetermined validation set by using a k-fold cross
validation algorithm”) which fails to provide adequate written description under §112(a) (see MPEP §2181 IV. "Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.").
With respect to Applicant’s further statement (see pp. 11-12) “the validation set is predefined and derived from the same dataset partitioning disclosed in S33”. However, the specification fails to explain how the claimed “predefined validation set” is derived from the validation sets in S33, to adequately support the claimed function. Thus, even if k-fold cross validation is standard, well-established machine learning technique (see Applicant’s remarks pp. 12), the specification still fails to adequately support the limitation of “performing validation based on a predetermined validation set by using a k-fold cross validation algorithm”.
Moving on to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), first with respect to Applicant’s statements (see pp. 12): “the specification explicity defines the superframe… superframe is also a well-known standard structure…”. The issue is not whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand what a superframe is, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), issue is that the claim uses inconsistent language, e.g., “superframe structure” and “superframe”, which raises an indefiniteness issue under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) since it is not clear if the claims are referring to the same element or not.
Secondly, with respect to the term “a time period of a time slot”, i.e., “the time slot period is calculated based on the longest path length (in hops) in the network” (see pp. 12), the claim, however, does not require “calculating a time period of a time slot”, but rather requires “calculating a number of the time slot” (see claim 1). Moreover, since Applicant’s claims separately introduce “a time period of a time slot”, and “a number of the time slot”, it is clear the terms are not intended to be the same.
Furthermore, as per Applicant’s statement “‘a node’ and ‘each of nodes’ are generic references to the same defined ‘industrial wireless node’, used for claim brevity and consistency” (see pp. 13), respectfully, however, even in view of the specification, the statement is not a logical interpretation of the claim. Regardless of whether an industrial wireless node/node is a well-known term in industrial networking, “a node” and/or “industrial wireless node” are referencing a singular noun, and “each of nodes” is referring to a plurality of nouns. Therefore, logically the terms cannot be in reference to the same element.
In view of Applicant’s unequivocal statement regarding the proper interpretation of the term “configuration information”, the Examiner is interpreting the claimed “configuration information” consistent with Applicant’s remarks/specification as explicitly listed and defined in pp. 13-14 of Applicant’s remarks. However, Applicant’s amendment from "the offline phase" to "an offline phase" still raises an indefiniteness issue since it is not clear if the currently amended “offline phase” is separate from the “offline stage” introduced in line 3 (see Claim Rejection 35 U.S.C. §112(b)).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments concerning the “transmits data through an assigned path” limitation (see pp. 14), even in view of the “assigned path” as explicitly defined and disclosed in the specification, the limitation “each of nodes in the industrial wireless network transmits data through an assigned path” still remains grammatically unclear.
As per claim 2, with respect to Applicant’s argument that the term "time slot requirements of nodes in a next superframe" can be appreciated by the person skilled in the art (see Remarks, pp. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant earlier states “the specification explicitly defines the superframe as a customized frame structure in the industrial wireless network”, see pp. 12 of Applicant’s remarks, however, the superframe structure does not contain nodes as the limitation currently suggests (i.e., “time slot requirements of nodes in a next superframe”), nor would a person skilled in the art appreciate what Applicant is referring to as “nodes in a next superframe”.
With respect to the “beacon broadcasting stage” limitation (see remarks, pp. 15), Applicant’s remarks adequately clarify “beacon broadcasting” in S5 from “the beacon broadcasting stage” in S1.
As per claim 3, similar to above, the Examiner maintains that the use of inconsistent language, e.g., “superframe structure” vs. “superframe”, and “node”, “nodes”, and “industrial wireless node”, when referring to the same elements raises an indefiniteness issue under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) since it is not clear if the claims are referring to the same elements or not. In addition, even in view of Applicant’s specification, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the network” refers to the heterogeneous network, broadly, as opposed to the industrial wireless network specifically.
As per claim 4, the Examiner maintains the rejection of the S31 limitation, for reasons noted above. With respect to the S32 limitation, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of the limitation “supplementing information in the data sets, wherein missed information for a plurality of time slots in the data sets is supplemented” based on Applicant’s clarifying remarks. However, the Examiner maintains the rejection on 35 U.S.C. §112(b) grounds with respect to the separate limitations to an “m*n matrix”, “the matrix”, and an “a data set information matrix” as it is not clear, even in view of Applicant’s remarks/specification, if the terms are intended to be referring to the same matrix or not. As per Applicant’s remarks regarding 5 (see pp. 17), first, the phrase "wherein each of elements in the matrix” is grammatically unclear. Moreover, the Examiner maintains that it is not clear what “each of elements in the matrix” is in reference to. Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s argument “it is clear that the m*n matrix from the training set is input into the trained time slot requirement prediction model, and the subsequent m*n matrix is output by the same prediction model”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Similar to above, reference to “an industrial wireless node” raises an indefiniteness issue, and thus the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection. Moreover, the limitation “the numerical value represents a priority of data sent by an industrial wireless node in a time of a next superframe”, remains confusing, since the tense “sent by” suggests a past action, however, the claim limitation refers to a future timeframe (i.e., “next superframe”). As such the Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “the numerical value represents a priority of data to be sent by the industrial wireless node in a time slot of a next superframe…”.
The Examiner further maintains reference to the "time slot" in claim 5 raises an issue of indefiniteness since it is not clear if the time slot is referring to the time slot introduced for the next supeframe or the time slot previously introduced in claim 1.
Applicant’s reference to the limitation: "n represents the number of industrial wireless nodes (plural)" (see pp. 17 of Applicant’s remarks), is unclear as the claim does not state “industrial wireless nodes”, but rather “n represents the number of industrial wireless node”.
With respect to the “next superframe” vs “single superframe”, in view of Applicant’s remarks, see pp. 17, it is clear the terms are intended to be different.
With respect to the term "an actual measurement", Applicant’s statement that the term refers to “real on-site measured data obtained from practical industrial heterogeneous network runtime test” (see pp. 17), is unclear as it is not clear in the context of the claim what “on-site measured data” Applicant is referring to in the limitation.
With respect to the limitation: "performing validation based on a predetermined validation set by using a k-fold cross validation algorithm", the Examiner maintains that the rejection of the limitation for the same reasons as noted above.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks regarding "the model", in claim 5, similar to the use of “superframe structure” and “superframe”, in claim 1, the Examiner would appreciate using consistent language, i.e., “the time slot requirement prediction model” to avoid unnecessary confusion in the claim.
With respect to “a training set” introduced in claim 5 (see Remarks pp. 18), the Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as it is not apparent that the training set introduced in claim 5 is the same training set as defined in the offline stage of claim 1. Applicant may easily avoid unnecessary confusion by amending claim 5, to recite i.e., “[[a]] the training set”.
With respect to “the testing set” (see Remarks pp. 18), the Examiner agrees the limitation has antecedent basis in claim 1. However, “the data sets in the testing set” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Moreover, in the context of the claim it appears that the data sets are with respect to the training set and not the testing set, i.e., see claim 5: “the model is tested using data sets in a training set”.
With respect to the Applicant’s amendment regarding “total number of the data sets”, it remains unclear which “data sets” Applicant is referring to “the data set for the training set” or “the data sets for the testing set”?
With respect to the terms “the number of the time slots in the single superframe” and “the number of the industrial wireless nodes” in view of Applicant’s remarks the terms are sufficiently definite, however, as previously stated reference to "an actual measurement" in the limitation remains unclear.
With respect to the referenced equation
T
i
d
l
e
=
∑
k
=
1
p
∑
i
=
1
m
T
s
l
o
t
p
, although the equation serves as an indispensable intermediate calculation parameter (see Applicant’s remarks, pp. 19), the claim however, states: “calculating an average network transmission delay predicted by the model using the following equation in a case that model is qualified”, and then goes on to disclose at least two equations:
T
i
d
l
e
=
∑
k
=
1
p
∑
i
=
1
m
T
s
l
o
t
p
, and
d
e
l
a
y
¯
=
1
-
E
¯
G
o
a
l
¯
*
T
s
l
o
t
+
(
E
¯
G
o
a
l
¯
*
1
-
T
i
d
l
e
¯
T
s
u
p
e
r
f
r
a
m
e
*
T
s
u
p
e
r
f
r
a
m
e
T
i
d
l
e
¯
*
T
s
l
o
t
_
.Thus it is not clear, which equation is required to be performed by the claim.
With respect to Applicant’s statement “Reference to the ‘single superframe’, ‘the data sets’, ‘the time period of the time slot’ have ben explained as above” (see pp. 19). The Examiner maintains the rejection with respect to the use of the term “the data sets” and “the time period of the time slot”, as it is not clear which “data sets” and “time slot” the claim is referencing.
With respect to claim 6, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, has been removed in view of Applicant’s clarification with respect to the configuration information in claim 1.
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, as it is simply not clear which “a node” and/or “industrial wireless node” Applicant’s claim is referring to. Despite Applicant’s remarks, the Examiner maintains that it is not clear that threshold is referring to the same threshold. Finally, it is not clear which “time slots” Applicant is referring to in the claim. However, the Examiner removes the rejection with respect to “all industrial wireless nodes” which is sufficiently definite.
As per claim 8, similar to above use of the term "node", "a time slot", "the network", renders indefinite the claimed invention without clarifying amendments. Finally, the Examiner maintains that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand “a router” as an abbreviated expression of the previously introduced “wireless routing device” as opposed to a new limitation. As to "data sent by a wireless industrial node" and "the wireless industrial node sending the data" (see S71), the Examiner maintains that it is not clear that the limitations refer to the same industrial wireless node.
As to Applicant’s remarks regarding the limitation “the node waits until a next idle time slot begins to send the data" - i.e., “this limitation describes pending transmission rather than completed data delivery” (see pp. 19). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as such an interpretation is in direct conflict with the previous limitation “in a case that the priority of the data sent by the node”.
With respect to claim 9, although Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks clarify the claimed invention, the Examine still maintains, for similar reasons noted above, the use of the terms “nodes” and “other nodes” is unclear, and thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with Applicant’s unequivocal remarks (see pp. 13-14, of Applicant’s 06/25/2026 response), the Examiner is interpreting the term “configuration information” in claim 1, in view of the specification as referring to:
“…all key parameters and model data determined during the offline stage (S1-S4), which are explicitly listed and defined in the specification:
Superframe period (Specification [0016],[0058]-[0060]);
Time slot period (Specification [0016], [0061]-[0064]);
Network path information table (Specification [0019],[0063]);
Priority mapping table (Specification [0009]-[0013]);
Trained time-slot requirement prediction model (Specification [0018],[0084]-[0096]);
All of these items are determined, calculated, or trained in the offline stage, and then configured to network devices in the online stage (S5)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted in MPEP §2106.01: “…claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” (See MPEP §2161.01, Also see MPEP §2181 IV. "Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness…It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph." (emphasis added)(internal citations omitted)).
In this case, as per claim 4, step S31, i.e., “extacting data sets…” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, the specification merely restates the claimed function (see ¶0031, citing Applicant’s PG-PUB US 2025/0008493) without reciting an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the “extracting” function.
As per claim 5, the limitation “performing validation based on a predetermined validation set by using a k-fold cross validation algorithm” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, the specification merely restates the claimed function (see ¶0039 and ¶0143, citing Applicant’s PG-PUB US 2025/0008493) without reciting an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function. More specifically, the specification simply fails to describe in sufficient detail what Applicant means by “a predetermined validation set”, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, with respect to S1, reference to “the superframe” is ambiguous. Furthermore, the limitation “calculating a number of the time slot” is unclear.
For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S1: customizing a superframe in the industrial wireless network, obtaining, from a user, a time period of the superframe and a time period of a time slot, and calculating a total number of [[the]] time slots of the superframe”.
As per S2, S5, and S6, reference to “a node” and separately “an industrial wireless node”, and “each of nodes in the industrial wireless network”, raises an indefiniteness issue, since it is not clear if the nodes are intended to be the same or different. For S2, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S2: obtaining, from the user, data packet information sent by an industrial wireless node, wherein the data packet information is continuous over time”.
Separately, as per S5, with respect to the limitation “configuration information determined in an offline phase”, it is unclear if Applicant is referring to another offline phase/stage, or the “the offline stage” in line 3 (i.e., S1-S4). For the purpose of this office action, and in view of Applicant’s specification/remarks (see Claim interpretation), the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S5: configuring a heterogeneous network, wherein a collaborative scheduling subsystem an industrial wireless gateway, a wireless routing device and the industrial wireless node are configured with configuration information determined in [[an]] the offline stage;”
Finally, the limitation “each of nodes in the industrial wireless network transmits data through an assigned path” is grammatically unclear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…S7: each industrial wireless node in the industrial wireless network transmits data through an assigned path.”
As per claim 2, the limitation to “time slot requirements of nodes in a next subframe” is not clear. Furthermore, reference to “time slots” (i.e., “in the data transmission stage, the time slots are classified…”) is ambiguous. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting claim 2 to read:
“…in the beacon broadcasting stage, the collaborative scheduling subsystem predicts time slot requirements of industrial wireless nodes sending data in a time period corresponding to a next superframe, by using the time slot requirement prediction model…”’ and
“…in the data transmission stage, the time slots of the next superframe are classified …”.
As per claim 3, the limitation to “nodes” is ambiguous. Moreover, the reference to “the network” (i.e., “…calculating the time period of the time slot based on lengths of paths in the network by using the following equation, wherein the time period of the time slot is positively correlated with a length of a longest path in the network…”, etc.) is also ambiguous, since the claim previously introduces an “industrial wireless network”, a “time sensitive network” and a “heterogeneous network”. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein the time period of the superframe in the S1 step is determined by: obtaining, from the user, service requirements of an industrial site to determine nodes required to upload periodic data, obtaining, from the user, time periods for the nodes to upload data, and determining the time period of the superframe as a least common multiple of the time periods of the time periods by using the following equation … where Tsupeframe represents the time period of the superframe, T1, T2, …, Tn …”; and
“…calculating the time period of the time slot based on lengths of paths in the industrial wireless network by using the following equation, wherein the time period of the time slot is positively correlated with a length of a longest path in the industrial wireless network:
Tslot = (max(Length1,Length2,…, Lengthn) +2)*Thop
where Tslot represents the time period of the time slot, Length1,Length2,…, Lengthn represents lengths of respective n paths in the industrial wireless network …”.
As per claim 4, first, the “S31” limitation is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action, and in view of Fig. 4 of Applicant’s specification, the Examiner is interpreting the claims to read:
“S31: collect data packets, grouping the collected data packets into data sets, and mapping the data sets to respective superframes, , a difference between a timestamp of [[the]] a first data packet in a data set and a timestamp of the first data packet in a subsequent data set is equal to the time period of the superframe
Secondly, with respect to “S32”, the separate limitations to an “m*n matrix”, “the matrix”, and an “a data set information matrix” raises an indefiniteness issue under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), if the terms are intended to be referring to the same matrix or not. Finally, the reference to “a heterogeneous network” (i.e., “the number of industrial wireless nodes in a heterogeneous network…”) is unclear, since the claim previously introduces a heterogeneous network in claim 1.
“S32: supplementing information in the data sets, wherein missed information for a plurality of time slots in the data sets is supplemented, information in a single data set is a m*n matrix, m represents the number of time slots in a single superframe, n represents the number of industrial wireless nodes in [[a]] the heterogeneous network, each element in the m*n matrix has a numerical value that represents a priority of data sent by an industrial wireless node in a time slot of a current superframe, and in the m*n matrix, 0 is filled for idle time slots to indicate that no node sends data in the idle time slots”
As per claim 5, reference to “the matrix” (i.e., “wherein each of elements [sic] in the matrix comprises…”) is unclear as the claim previously mentions multiple matrices (i.e., “inputting an m*n matrix from the training set”, and “outputting an matrix”). Furthermore, it is not clear what the m*n matrix is being input into and/or what is outputting the subsequent m*n matrix. In addition, reference to “the time slot” is ambiguous as the claim previously introduces a time slot in claim 1. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein the training the time slot requirement prediction model in S4 comprises: inputting an m*n matrix from the training set into the time slot requirement prediction model; outputting an m*n matrix from the time slot requirement prediction model, wherein each matrix comprises a numerical value and a percentage, the numerical value represents a priority of data sent by an industrial wireless node in a time slot of a next superframe predicted by the time slot requirement prediction model, and the percentage represents a probability of the industrial wireless node sending data in the time slot of the next superframe”
Secondly, with regard to the error calculation, the limitation “n represents the number of the industrial wireless node” is unclear. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by “an actual measurement”. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“… where E represents an error of a prediction, m represents a number of time slots in asingle superframe, n represents the number of [[the]] industrial wireless nodes in the heterogeneous network, Reali,j represents a priority of data sent by a j-th node in an i-th time slot of the next superframe , Forecasti,j represents a priority of data sent by the j-th node in the i-th time slot of the next superframe in the prediction, and Percenti,j represents a probability of the j-th node sending data in the i-th time slot of the next superframe in the prediction”.
Next, with respect to the limitation: “performing validation based on a predetermined validation set by using a k-fold cross validation algorithm”, it is not clear what Applicant is referred to as “the predetermined validation set”, thus the scope of the term is unclear in the context of the limitation.
Also, with respect to the limitation “performing performance analysis on the model, wherein the model is tested using data sets in a training set to obtain error values”, reference to “the model” is ambiguous. Furthermore, it is not clear if the “training set” introduced by the limitation is distinct from the training set introduced in claim 1. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“performing performance analysis on the time slot requirement prediction model, wherein the time slot requirement prediction model is tested using data sets in [[a]] the training set to obtain error values”
Moreover, with respect to the limitation “where Ē represents the average error, q represents the number of the data sets in the testing set, and Ek represents an error obtained by testing the model with a k-th data set in the training set”, first, “the data sets in the testing set” lacks antecedent basis. reference to “the model” is ambiguous. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“where Ē represents the average error, q represents a number of the data sets in the training set, and Ek represents an error obtained by testing the model with a k-th data set in the training set”
Similar to above, with respect to the limitation: “…Realk,iJ represents a priority of data sent by a j-th node in an i-th time slot of a k-th data set in actual measurement”, it is not clear what is meant by “in actual measurement”. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…Realk,i,j represents a priority of data sent by a j-th node in an i-th time slot of a k-th data set ;”.
In addition, with respect to the limitation: “comparing the average error value with the error reference value by using the following formulas to determine whether the model … continuing the training in a case that the model is not qualified; and calculating an average network transmission delay predicted by the model using the following equation in a case that the model is qualified…”, reference to “the model” is ambiguous, moreover it is not clear what “following equation” is required by Applicant’s claim.
For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“comparing the average error value with the error reference value by using the following formulas to determine whether the time slot requirement prediction model … continuing the training in a case that the time slot requirement prediction model is not qualified; and
calculating an average network transmission delay predicted by the time slot requirement prediction model using the following equation in a case that the time slot requirement prediction model is qualified:
d
e
l
a
y
¯
=
1
-
E
¯
G
o
a
l
¯
*
T
s
l
o
t
+
(
E
¯
G
o
a
l
¯
*
1
-
T
i
d
l
e
¯
T
s
u
p
e
r
f
r
a
m
e
*
T
s
u
p
e
r
f
r
a
m
e
T
i
d
l
e
¯
*
T
s
l
o
t
_
Finally, with respect to the limitation: “where
T
i
d
l
e
¯
represents an average time period of an idle time slot in the single superframe, p represents the total number of the data sets, m represents the number of the idle time slots in the single superframe, and Tslot represents the time period of the time slot”, similar to above, reference to “the data sets” and “the time period of the time slot” is ambiguous. Moreover, “the idle time slots” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
As per claim 7, reference to “a node” and separately “industrial wireless nodes” adds ambiguity to the claim. In addition, Applicant appears to introduces thresholdper twice, thus it is not clear if Applicant intends for the claim to comprise separate thresholds. Finally, following the limitation to “all industrial wireless nodes”, reference to just “the industrial wireless nodes” is unclear (i.e., “broadcasting the beacon frame to all industrial wireless nodes in the industrial wireless network, to update the time slot assignment table in all the industrial wireless nodes, wherein in the next superframe, the industrial wireless nodes communicates…”). For the purpose of this office action, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…inputting, by the collaborative scheduling subsystem after a current superframe ends and before a next superframe starts, data packet information of the current superframe to the time slot requirement prediction model to output time slot requirement prediction information for the next superframe, assigning time slots for the next superframe sequentially, wherein an industrial wireless node in the industrial wireless network with a probability greater than thresholdper of transmitting data in a time slot of the next superframe is assigned n industrial wireless node with a probability less than the thresholdper of transmitting data in a time slot of the next superframe is not assigned the time slot, wherein time slot assignment results are written in a time slot assignment table; and
after the time slots are assigned, writing, by the industrial wireless gateway , the time slot assignment table in a beacon frame, and broadcasting the beacon frame to all industrial wireless nodes in the industrial wireless network, to update the time slot assignment table in all the industrial wireless nodes, wherein in the next superframe, the industrial wireless nodes communicate[[s]] based on the updated time slot assignment table.”
As per claim 8, with respect to the limitation: “wherein the data transmitted in step S7 comprises command data sent by the user and data sent by a node; the command data sent by the user is not assigned with a time slot but has a highest priority, and is directly transmitted through a shortest path selected from paths in the network…”, first, reference to “a node” and “a time slot” is ambiguous. Secondly, reference to “the network” (i.e., “…is directly transmitted through a shortest path selected from paths in the network”) is ambiguous, as the claim 1 previously introduced a time sensitive network, industrial wireless network, and heterogeneous network. For purposes of this office action, and to further make sense of later steps (i.e., S71), the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein the data transmitted in step S7 comprises command data sent by the user and data sent by [[a]] the wireless industrial node to the wireless network device; the command data sent by the user is not assigned with a time slot in the next superframe but has a highest priority, and is directly transmitted through a shortest path selected from paths in the heterogeneous network”
Secondly, with respect to the S71 limitation, reference to “a router” is ambiguous as claim 1 previously introduced “a wireless routing device”. In addition, the differing tenses using throughout the claim, i.e., “”data sent by a wireless industrial node” (see above), and then “the wireless industrial node sending the data” (see S71) is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. In addition the limitation “the node waits until a next idle time slot begins [to send the data]”, in the context of the claim is unclear, since, according to the claim, the data has already been sent by the node. For purposes of this office action, the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“and sending the data by the the wireless network device : ”
S71: determining, by the wireless routing device, whether the wireless industrial node is assigned a time slot in a current superframe;
in a case that the wireless industrial node is assigned a time slot in the current superframe, proceeding to S72; and
in a case that the wireless industrial node is not assigned a time slot in the current superframe, determining, by the wireless routing device, whether a current time slot in the current superframe is an idle time slot;
in a case that the current time slot is an idle time slot, proceeding to S72; and
in a case that the current time slot is not an idle time slot, determining, by the wireless routing device, whether a priority of the data to be sent by the wireless industrial node is higher than priorities of other data to be sent by other wireless industrial nodes assigned the current time slot;
in a case that the priority of the data to be sent by the wireless industrial node is not higher than the priorities of the other data to be sent by the other wireless industrial nodes waiting until a next idle time slot begins to send the data….”.
Next, with respect to the S72 step, similar to above reference to “the node” is ambiguous. Moreover, reference to “a router” distinct from the “wireless routing device” adds ambiguity to the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“sending, by the wireless industrial node, data to a wireless routing device directly connected to the wireless industrial node …”.
In addition, with regard to S73, similar to above, reference to “the router” as opposed to “wireless routing device” render an indefinite. Furthermore, with respect to the limitation “transmitting the data” it is unclear who or what is transmitting the data. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S73: determining, by the wireless routing device whether there are any remaining paths in a path occupancy table;
in a case that there are remaining paths in the path occupancy table, assigning a shortest path in the remaining paths to the wireless industrial node, updating the path occupancy table, and transmitting the data by the wireless routing device; and
in a case that there are no remaining paths in the path occupancy table, proceeding to S74…”.
With regard to S74, similar to above, reference to “the router” as opposed to “wireless routing device” as previously claimed renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
S74: sorting, by the wireless routing device , occupied paths in the path occupancy table based on priorities of data occupying the paths;
With regard to S75, similar to above, reference to “the router” as opposed to “wireless routing device” as previously claimed render an indefinite. It is also unclear who/what is “transmitting the data” in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S75: comparing, by the wireless routing device , a priority of first data occupying a first path with the priority of the data sent by the wireless industrial node;
in a case that the priority of the data sent by the wireless industrial node is higher than the priority of the first data occupying the first path, sharing the first path between the data sent by the wireless industrial node and the first data, updating, by the wireless routing device , the path occupancy table, and transmitting the data by the wireless routing device; and
in a case that the priority of the data sent by the wireless industrial node is not higher than the priority of the first data occupying the first path, checking, by the wireless routing device , another path in the path occupancy table, and proceeding to S74…”.
Finally, with regard to S76, similar to above, reference to “the node” is ambiguous. Moreover, it is unclear who/what is “transmitting the data”. Secondly, reference to “the data” (i.e., “transmitting the data”) and separately “data” (i.e., wherein after data is sent by …”) renders the claim indefinite. Also, “the transmission information of the data” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“S76: transmitting the data by the wireless routing device after a path is successfully assigned, wherein after the data reaches an industrial wireless gateway of the industrial wireless network, the industrial wireless gateway sends [[the]] transmission information of the data to the collaborative scheduling subsystem, and the collaborative scheduling subsystem adds the transmission information to a data set to be used as an input to the time slot requirement prediction model for a next superframe.”
With regard to claim 9, the limitation to the “other nodes” and “nodes” is indefinite (i.e., “a path occupancy table is used by the wireless routing device to record occupancy situations of all paths from the wireless routing device to other nodes…” and “the wireless routing device selects all the paths from the wireless routing device to the nodes”). For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“a path occupancy table is used by the wireless routing device to record occupancy situations of all paths from the wireless routing device to each industrial wireless node in the industrial wireless network …” and “the wireless routing device selects all the paths from the wireless routing device to each industrial wireless node in the industrial wireless network”
Claims not specifically address are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) based on their dependency to one or more claims addressed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and/or §112(b), are allowed over the prior art based on the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights