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 Amendment
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 23 March 2026.
Claims 1-15 are presently pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 has being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer program code. However, the language of this claim is missing the physical storage/memory wherein the code/instructions is stored therein. Therefore, this version explicitly directed to code (software) per se since the code/instructions is not stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, claim 15 remains rejected under 101 per the above reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0404460 in view of Kish, U. S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0180396 and further in view of Stanwood et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0272121.
Regarding claim 1, Prasad discloses the method comprising the steps of: obtaining a data consumption pattern of the node device over a first time period (see Prasad, ¶ [0006]; data consumption pattern is determined for a period of time); obtaining data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units over the first time period (see Prasad, ¶ [0031-[0032] and [0065]; consumption pattern relating to backhaul node is obtained); matching the data consumption pattern of the node device to one of the data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units (see Prasad, ¶ [0060] and [0073]; analysis and comparison of the consumption pattern is made); and identifying association of the node device to a corresponding backhaul unit of the plurality of backhaul units having the matched data consumption pattern (see Prasad, ¶ [0073], [0079] and [0082]; Determination is made based on the data consumption pattern result).
Although Prasad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose a method of identifying association of a backhaul unit to a node device that already connected to the backhaul unit in a network.
Kish teaches disclose a method of identifying association of a backhaul unit to a node device that already connected to the backhaul unit in a network (see Kish, ¶ [0010]-[0011] and [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kish with that of Prasad in order to efficiently identify backhaul associations based on the data consumption patterns.
Although the combination of Prasad-Kish discloses the invention substantially as claimed, they do not explicitly disclose the network having a plurality of backhaul units each arranged for connecting to a corresponding one of a plurality of node devices and for providing network connection to the corresponding one of the plurality of node devices, the backhaul unit being one of the plurality of backhaul units, the node device being of the plurality of node devices.
Stanwood teaches the network having a plurality of backhaul units each arranged for connecting to a corresponding one of a plurality of node devices and for providing network connection to the corresponding one of the plurality of node devices, the backhaul unit being one of the plurality of backhaul units, the node device being of the plurality of node devices (see Stanwood, ¶ [0008] and [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Stanwood with that of Prasad-Kish in order to efficiently provide connections between the nodes and the corresponding backhaul interface modules.
Regarding claim 2, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the data consumption pattern of the node device is negotiated by a remote application with the node device, the method further comprising, subsequent to obtaining the data consumption pattern of the node device over the first time period aligning with the node device about the first time period of the data consumption pattern (see Prasad, ¶ [0004] and [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein obtaining the data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units over the same time period comprises retrieving stored data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units over the first time period (see Prasad, ¶ [0031] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the data consumption pattern of the node device comprises a number of data consumptions in consecutive time frames of the first number (see Prasad, ¶ [0024] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the data consumption pattern of the node device further comprises at least one of (i) a volume of each data consumption, (ii) a direction of each data consumption and (iii) presence or absence of each data consumption (see Prasad, ¶ [0007] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein each non-zero data consumption is at least one kilobyte in each time frame (see Prasad, ¶ [0023] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the backhaul unit is configured to support a plurality of communication ports, wherein obtaining the data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units over the first time period comprises obtaining data consumption of each of the plurality of communication ports of the plurality of backhaul units over the first time period; wherein matching data consumption pattern comprises matching the data consumption pattern of the node device to one of the data consumption patterns of the plurality of communication ports of the plurality of backhaul units; and wherein identifying association comprises identifying association of the node device to one communication port of the backhaul unit having the matched data consumption pattern (see Prasad, ¶ [0031] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein matching further comprises: calculating an indicator of relevance of the data consumption pattern of the node device with each data consumption pattern of the plurality of backhaul units; and matching the data consumption pattern of the node device to one of the data consumption patterns corresponding to the backhaul unit with an indicator indicating a highest relevance (see Prasad, ¶ [0008] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the indicator is based on a covariance or a Pearson coefficient between the data consumption pattern of the node device and each data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units (see Prasad, ¶ [0041] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the indicator is further based on absolute values of the data consumption pattern of the node device and of the data consumption patterns of the plurality of backhaul units (see Prasad, ¶ [0064] and [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches further comprising blocking the node device from creating data consumption above a defined threshold during the first time period (see Prasad, ¶ [0062] and [0093]).
Regarding claim 12, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein the node device is identified by a unique node identification, each of the plurality backhaul units is identified by a unique backhaul identification, and identifying association comprises identifying association of a unique node identification of the node device with a unique backhaul identification of the backhaul unit having the matched data consumption pattern (see Prasad, ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad-Kish-Stanwood teaches wherein each of the plurality backhaul units is installed on a light pole and supports one or more Power over Ethernet (PoE), port, and the node device comprises at least one of a lighting controller, a camera and a sensor (see Prasad, ¶ [0064]).
Claim 14 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claim 15 list all the same elements of claim 1, but in computer program code rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights