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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 06/12/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 10/23/2024, 08/20/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 11 -20 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three, MPEP 2181(I) states in part, (emphasis noted)
“Accordingly, examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This list is not exhaustive, and other generic placeholders may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph.”
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “unit” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a processing unit configured to determine … ” recited in claims 11,16,19;
“processing unit being further configured to handle….” recited in claims 11,12,14.
“ a transmission unit configured to transmit ... ” recited in claims 12,13,15.
“a receiving unit, configured to receive … ” recited in claim 14.
A review of the specification shows that he following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C 112 (f0 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a processing unit configured to determine … ” See Published Specification - Fig.3A,3B &3C, ¶ 0090, ¶0110, ¶ 0030, , ¶ 0035, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0176 -¶0177
“processing unit being further configured to handle….” See Published Specification - Fig.3A,3B &3C, ¶ 0110, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0251-¶ 0253
“ a transmission unit configured to transmit ... ” See Published Specification - Fig.3A,3B &3C, ¶ 0110, ¶ 0015, ¶ 0018, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0254
“a receiving unit, configured to receive … ” See Published Specification - Fig.3A,3B &3C, ¶ 0090, ¶0110, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0151
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-9,11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Shurbanov et al. Patent No. US 7,369,512 B1 ( Shurbanov hereinafter)
Regarding claim 1,
Shurbanov teaches a method comprising:
determining, at a network node in a communication network, a restriction associated with a flooding message for building a routing tree in the communication network (Abstract – A system provides packet flooding in a network (200) that includes multiple nodes (210). The system may receive a flood packet, select one or more of the nodes (210) as a like number of one or more relays (210), and attach a header to the flood packet. The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet – See Also Claims 1 & 2- wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays); and
handling the flooding message, at the network node, according to the restriction (Col.7,lines 55-60 - Source node N 1 instructs relays N2 and N3 to which 2-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to node NS and node N3 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N4 and N6 - Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes -See Also Claim 11).
Regarding claim 2,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein handling the flooding message comprises: including an indication of the restriction in the flooding message; and transmitting the flooding message with the indication included in the flooding message ( Abstract – A system provides packet flooding in a network (200) that includes multiple nodes (210). The system may receive a flood packet, select one or more of the nodes (210) as a like number of one or more relays (210), and attach a header to the flood packet. The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet – The system may send the flood packet with the attached header to the one or more relays (210). The one or more relays (210) may retransmit the packet such that each of the nodes (210) in the network (200) receives a single copy of the flood packet. Col.6, lines 30-40 - Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source – See Also Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein transmitting the flooding message comprises transmitting the flooding message only to one or more other network nodes in the communication network at which the restriction is satisfied (Fig.7C, Col.7,lines 55-60 - Source node N 1 instructs relays N2 and N3 to which 2-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to node NS and node N3 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N4 and N6 - Col 3, lines 1-15 - receiving a flood packet at a first one of the nodes and determining whether the flood packet includes an attached header, where the header identifies one or more second nodes to which the first node is to transmit the flood packet – Claim 1 - attaching a header to the flood packet, the header instructing the one or more relays to which of the nodes to send the flood packet; sending the flood packet with the attached header to the one or more relays – Col.6, lines 30-35 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source).
Regarding claim 4,
Shurbanov further teaches
receiving the flooding message, wherein handling the flooding message comprises: processing the flooding message where the restriction is satisfied, and otherwise discarding the flooding message (Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes - Col. 6, lines 55-70 - If the flood packet received by flooding module 430 came from a lower layer process, flooding module 430 may determine whether the flood packet includes an attached relay configuration header (act 655) (FIG. 6B). If the flood packet includes the relay configuration header, flooding module 430 may extract the header and compare it with the current relay configuration (acts 660 and 665). Flooding module 430 may duplicate the flood packet and send a copy to a client application (e.g., a control module 410 and/or an application 420) (acts 670 and 675 – See Abstract, Col.3 lines 3-15).
Regarding claim 5,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein handling the flooding message further comprises: transmitting the flooding message after processing, where the restriction is satisfied, wherein transmitting the flooding message after processing comprises transmitting to neighboring nodes of the network node in the communication network, or transmitting only to one or more of the neighboring nodes at which the restriction is satisfied ( Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes – Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. Col. 7, lines 60-70 – Source node N1 instructs relay N2 to which n-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N3 and N5 Col.6, lines 30-40 - Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received
from this source – Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays - Flooding module 430 may duplicate the flood packet and send a copy to a client application (e.g., a control module 410 and/or an application 420) – Col.7, liens 15-30 - Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays (act 650)).
Regarding claim 6,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein determining the restriction comprises obtaining the restriction from the flooding message (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes – Col.3, lines 10-15 - The method may also include extracting the header when the flood packet includes the header and retransmitting the flood packet to the one or more second nodes based at least in part on the extracted header – Col.6 , lines 55-70 - If the flood packet includes the relay configuration header, flooding module 430 may extract the header and compare it with the current relay configuration).
Regarding claim 7,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the restriction is based on any one or more of the following: angles relative to a root node of the routing tree; a distance from the root node of the routing tree; a set of network node identities (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. – Col. 7, lines 60-70 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received
from this source – See Also Claims 1 & 2 - wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays – Claim 4 & 5 - setting a transmission power for the flood packet with the attached header based on a location of the one or more relays. wherein the setting a transmission power includes determining the transmission power
based at least in part on a distance to a farthest one of the one or more relays).
Regarding claim 8,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the restriction comprises one of a plurality of restrictions associated with the flooding message, the plurality of restrictions comprising any one or more of the following: restrictions based on respective angles relative to a root node of the routing tree; restrictions based on respective distances from the root node of the routing tree; restrictions based on respective times; restrictions based on respective levels of loading in the communication network; restrictions based on respective sets of network node identities(Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. – Col. 7, lines 60-70 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source – See Also Claims 1 & 2 - wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays – Claim 4 & 5 - setting a transmission power for the flood packet with the attached header based on a location of the one or more relays. wherein the setting a transmission power includes determining the transmission power based at least in part on a distance to a farthest one of the one or more relays - Col. 6, lines 65-70 -Flooding module 430 may also determine whether the relay configuration has changed since the last transmission).
Regarding claim 9,
Shurbanov further teaches
determining, at the network node, a revised restriction that is based on the restriction and a second restriction associated with building a second routing tree in the communication network; and handling a second flooding message, by the network node, according to the revised restriction ( Claim 1 - selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays to form a first relay configuration; identifying a difference between the first relay configuration and a second relay configuration; comparing the difference between the first relay configuration and the second relay configuration to a threshold; updating the second relay configuration with the first relay 60 configuration when the difference is above the threshold - Col. 6, lines 15-25 - Flooding module 430 may compare this new relay configuration to the current relay configuration (i.e., previously selected relays) (act 625). This comparison may be made against a predetermined (possibly user-configurable) threshold (T/H). If the difference between these configurations is above the threshold, then flooding module 430 may update the current relay configuration with the new relay configuration Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source).
Regarding claim 11,
Shurbanov teaches an apparatus for a network node in a communication network, the apparatus comprising:
a processing unit, configured to determine a restriction associated with a flooding message for building a routing tree in the communication network (Abstract – A system provides packet flooding in a network (200) that includes multiple nodes (210). The system may receive a flood packet, select one or more of the nodes (210) as a like number of one or more relays (210), and attach a header to the flood packet. The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet – See Also Claims 1 & 2- wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays); and
the processing unit being further configured to handle the flooding message according to the restriction (Col.7,lines 55-60 - Source node N 1 instructs relays N2 and N3 to which 2-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to node NS and node N3 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N4 and N6 - Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes -See Also Claim 11).
Regarding claim 12,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the processing unit is configured to handle the flooding message by including an indication of the restriction in the flooding message, wherein the apparatus further comprises: a transmitting unit, configured to transmit the flooding message with the indication included in the flooding message (Abstract – A system provides packet flooding in a network (200) that includes multiple nodes (210). The system may receive a flood packet, select one or more of the nodes (210) as a like number of one or more relays (210), and attach a header to the flood packet. The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet – The system may send the flood packet with the attached header to the one or more relays (210). The one or more relays (210) may retransmit the packet such that each of the nodes (210) in the network (200) receives a single copy of the flood packet. Col.6, lines 30-40 - Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source – See Also Claim 1).
Regarding claim 13,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the transmitting unit is configured to transmit the flooding message only to one or more other nodes in the communication network at which the restriction is satisfied (Fig.7C, Col.7,lines 55-60 - Source node N 1 instructs relays N2 and N3 to which 2-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to node NS and node N3 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N4 and N6 - Col 3, lines 1-15 - receiving a flood packet at a first one of the nodes and determining whether the flood packet includes an attached header, where the header identifies one or more second nodes to which the first node is to transmit the flood packet – Claim 1 - attaching a header to the flood packet, the header instructing the one or more relays to which of the nodes to send the flood packet; sending the flood packet with the attached header to the one or more relays – Col.6, lines 30-35 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source).
Regarding claim 14,
Shurbanov further teaches
a receiving unit, configured to receive the flooding message, wherein the processing unit is configured to handle the flooding message by processing the flooding message where the restriction is satisfied, and otherwise discarding the flooding message. (Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes - Col. 6, lines 55-70 - If the flood packet received by flooding module 430 came from a lower layer process, flooding module 430 may determine whether the flood packet includes an attached relay configuration header (act 655) (FIG. 6B). If the flood packet includes the relay configuration header, flooding module 430 may extract the header and compare it with the current relay configuration (acts 660 and 665). Flooding module 430 may duplicate the flood packet and send a copy to a client application (e.g., a control module 410 and/or an application 420) (acts 670 and 675 – See Abstract, Col.3 lines 3-15).
Regarding claim 15,
Shurbanov further teaches
a transmitting unit, configured to transmit the flooding message after processing, where the restriction is satisfied, wherein the transmitting unit is configured to transmit the flooding message, after processing: either to neighboring nodes of the network node in the communication network, or to only one or more of the neighboring nodes at which the restriction is satisfied ( Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes – Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. Col. 7, lines 60-70 – Source node N1 instructs relay N2 to which n-hop nodes to send the flood packet. In other words, node N2 is instructed to send the flood packet to nodes N3 and N5 Col.6, lines 30-40 - Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source – Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays - Flooding module 430 may duplicate the flood packet and send a copy to a client application (e.g., a control module 410 and/or an application 420) – Col.7, lines 15-30 - Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays (act 650)).
Regarding claim 16,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the restriction by obtaining the restriction from the flooding message. (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. Claim 6 - receiving the flood packet with the attached header at one of the one or more relays as a receiving relay; extracting the attached header; and retransmitting the flood packet from the receiving relay to one or more other ones of the nodes – Col.3, lines 10-15 - The method may also include extracting the header when the flood packet includes the header and retransmitting the flood packet to the one or more second nodes based at least in part on the extracted header – Col.6 , lines 55-70 - If the flood packet includes the relay configuration header, flooding module 430 may extract the header and compare it with the current relay configuration).
Regarding claim 17,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the restriction is based on any one or more of the following: angles relative to a root node of the routing tree; a distance from the root node of the routing tree; a set of network node identities (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. – Col. 7, lines 60-70 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received
from this source – See Also Claims 1 & 2 - wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays – Claim 4 & 5 - setting a transmission power for the flood packet with the attached header based on a location of the one or more relays. wherein the setting a transmission power includes determining the transmission power
based at least in part on a distance to a farthest one of the one or more relays).
Regarding claim 18,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the restriction comprises one of a plurality of restrictions associated with the flooding message, the plurality of restrictions comprising any one or more of the following: restrictions based on respective angles relative to a root node of the routing tree; restrictions based on respective distances from the root node of the routing tree; restrictions based on respective times; restrictions based on respective levels of loading in the communication network; restrictions based on respective sets of network node identities(Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet. – Col. 7, lines 60-70 - This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source – See Also Claims 1 & 2 - wherein the selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays includes: building a minimum spanning tree that covers an n-hop neighborhood of one of the nodes that generated the flood packet, and using the minimum spanning tree to identify the one or more relays – Claim 4 & 5 - setting a transmission power for the flood packet with the attached header based on a location of the one or more relays. wherein the setting a transmission power includes determining the transmission power based at least in part on a distance to a farthest one of the one or more relays - Col. 6, lines 65-70 -Flooding module 430 may also determine whether the relay configuration has changed since the last transmission).
Regarding claim 19,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the processing unit is further configured to: determine a revised restriction that is based on the restriction and a second restriction associated with building a second routing tree in the communication network; and handle a second flooding message according to the revised restriction ( Claim 1 - selecting one or more of the nodes as a like number of one or more relays to form a first relay configuration; identifying a difference between the first relay configuration and a second relay configuration; comparing the difference between the first relay configuration and the second relay configuration to a threshold; updating the second relay configuration with the first relay 60 configuration when the difference is above the threshold - Col. 6, lines 15-25 - Flooding module 430 may compare this new relay configuration to the current relay configuration (i.e., previously selected relays) (act 625). This comparison may be made against a predetermined (possibly user-configurable) threshold (T/H). If the difference between these configurations is above the threshold, then flooding module 430 may update the current relay configuration with the new relay configuration. Flooding module 430 may then attach to the flood packet a short additional header ("relay configuration header'') with the new relay configuration (act 640). This header may inform the relays to which 2-hop neighbors they must retransmit the current and subsequent flood packets received from this source).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shurbanov in view of Ahmed et al. Publication No.US 6,816,460 B1 ( Ahmed hereinafter)
Regarding claim 10,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet Col. 4, lines 15-30 -.Nodes 210 may maintain knowledge about the rest of network 200. For example, each node 210 may periodically transmit a link state update (LSU) that includes its location information (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) coordinates or relative location information) to the rest of network 200. Nodes 210 may use one or more flooding techniques consistent with the principles of the invention to transmit the LSUs, or other information that may be beneficial to other nodes 210 in network 200 – Col. 5, lines 10-15 -flooding module 430 may determine the amount of transmission power to be used to transmit a flood packet based, at least in part, on the location of the relay. Col. 6, lines 50-60 -Flooding module 430 may set the packet transmission power for the flood packet so as to reach the farthest relay in the relay configuration. Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays).
However, Shurbanov does not explicitly each
wherein the network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node, to enable routing toward the network node from outside the routing tree
Ahmed teaches
network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node, to enable routing toward the network node from outside the routing structure/topology (Col.3, lines 50-65 - It is assumed that each node further comprises global positioning system (GPS) equipment (not shown in FIG. 1), as known in the art, for determining its own location (in two dimensions) on the globe. In accordance with the invention, each node of the ad-hoc network implements a geometry based routing protocol (GRP) (also referred to as a geometry-based routing algorithm (GRA) or position-based routing) each node stores location information (approximate or exact) of the nodes of the ad-hoc network (those nodes in the local topology and those nodes outside of, or distant from, the local topology – Col.2, lines 20-25 - In the GRP, a source node routes a packet to a destination node outside of its local node topology (referred to herein as the local topology) as a function of the distance to the destination node). if the source node has to send a packet to a destination node outside their local area, then the source node uses the approximate location information of the destination node to identify which node in the local area is closest to the destination node in the local topology).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shurbanov to include the teachings of Ahmed. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to routes a packet to a destination node outside of its local node topology (Ahmed - Col.2, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 20,
Shurbanov further teaches
wherein the network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node (Abstract - The header may instruct the one or more relays (210) to which of the nodes (210) to send the flood packet Col. 4, lines 15-30 -.Nodes 210 may maintain knowledge about the rest of network 200. For example, each node 210 may periodically transmit a link state update (LSU) that includes its location information (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) coordinates or relative location information) to the rest of network 200. Nodes 210 may use one or more flooding techniques consistent with the principles of the invention to transmit the LSUs, or other information that may be beneficial to other nodes 210 in network 200 – Col. 5, lines 10-15 -flooding module 430 may determine the amount of transmission power to be used to transmit a flood packet based, at least in part, on the location of the relay. Col. 6, lines 50-60 -Flooding module 430 may set the packet transmission power for the flood packet so as to reach the farthest relay in the relay configuration. Flooding module 430 may then send the flood packet to forwarding module 440 for eventual transmission to the relays)
However, Shurbanov does not explicitly each
wherein the network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node, to enable routing toward the network node from outside the routing tree
Ahmed teaches
network node has an address in the communication network that is indicative of a geographic location of the network node, to enable routing toward the network node from outside the routing structure/topology(Col.3, lines 50-65 - It is assumed that each node further comprises global positioning system (GPS) equipment (not shown in FIG. 1), as known in the art, for determining its own location (in two dimensions) on the globe. In accordance with the invention, each node of the ad-hoc network implements a geometry based routing protocol (GRP) (also referred to as a geometry-based routing algorithm (GRA) or position-based routing) each node stores location information (approximate or exact) of the nodes of the ad-hoc network (those nodes in the local topology and those nodes outside of, or distant from, the local topology – Col.2, lines 20-25 - In the GRP, a source node routes a packet to a destination node outside of its local node topology (referred to herein as the local topology) as a function of the distance to the destination node). if the source node has to send a packet to a destination node outside their local area, then the source node uses the approximate location information of the destination node to identify which node in the local area is closest to the destination node in the local topology).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Shurbanov to include the teachings of Ahmed. The motivation for doing so is to allow the system to routes a packet to a destination node outside of its local node topology (Ahmed - Col.2, lines 20-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ko et al. Publication No. US 2017/0117978 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNES NAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-2659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM -5:30 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, Oscar A Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/YOUNES NAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445