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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “respective equipment” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “respective equipment” in line 2.
Claim 1 recites “respective equipment” in line 6. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “respective equipment” in line 2 and in line 4.
Claim 1 recites “an edge computing platform” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “an edge computing platform” in line 5.
Claim 3 recites “one seed-to-anchor wireless link” in lines 10-11. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “a seed-to-anchor wireless link” in line 9.
Claim 4 recites “each respective seed site” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a respective seed site” in claim 3, line 4.
Claim 4 recites “each respective anchor site” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a respective anchor site” in claim 3, line 7.
Claim 5 recites “nodes in the second group of nodes” in line 8. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “nodes in the second group of nodes” in line 6.
Claim 6 recites the phrase “expected to be” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “the respective equipment” in line 1. It is unclear whether it is referring to a) “respective equipment” in claim 1 line 2 or b) “respective equipment” in claim 1 line 4 or c) “respective equipment” in claim 1 line 6.
Claim 14 recites “respective equipment” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “respective equipment” in line 2.
Claim 14 recites “respective equipment” in line 6. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “respective equipment” in line 2 and in line 4.
Claim 14 recites “an edge computing platform” in line 7. It is unclear whether or not it is the same as “an edge computing platform” in line 5.
Claim 15 recites “each respective seed site” in line 1. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a respective seed site” in claim 14, lines 13-14.
Claim 15 recites “each respective anchor site” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a respective anchor site” in claim 14, lines 18-19.
Claim 16 recites the phrase “expected to be” in line 2. It is unclear whether or not the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “the respective equipment” in line 1. It is unclear whether it is referring to a) “respective equipment” in claim 14 line 2 or b) “respective equipment” in claim 14 line 4 or c) “respective equipment” in claim 14 line 6.
Claims 2, 7-12, and 17-19 are also rejected since they are depended on the rejected claims set forth above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,325 B2, hereinafter “Patent’325”.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’325.
Regarding claim 1, Patent’325 discloses a communication system comprising [see claim 1, line 1; A communication system comprising]:
a set of nodes that are each installed with respective equipment for operating as part of a wireless mesh network, the set of nodes comprising [see claim 1, lines 2-4; a set of nodes that are each installed with respective equipment for operating as part of a multi-tier wireless mesh network, the set of nodes comprising at least]:
a first subset of nodes that are each installed with respective equipment configured to operate as part of an edge computing platform [see claim 1, lines 5-9; a first subset of nodes within a first tier of the multi-tier wireless mesh network that are each installed with a respective first-tier edge computing system that is configured to operate as part of an edge computing platform]; and
a second subset of nodes that each lack respective equipment configured to operate as part of an edge computing platform [see claim 1, lines 10-14; a second subset of nodes within a second tier of the multi-tier wireless mesh network that are each installed with a respective second-tier edge computing system that is configured to operate as part of the edge computing platform. Note that the second subset of nodes each lack respective first-tier edge computing system].
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,595,850 B2, hereinafter “Patent’850”.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as the first application or patent. Moreover, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are the same scope of the claims of Patent’850.
Regarding claim 1, Patent’850 discloses a communication system comprising [see claim 1, line 1; A communication system comprising]:
a set of nodes that are each installed with respective equipment for operating as part of a wireless mesh network, the set of nodes comprising [see claim 1, lines 2-4; a set of nodes that are installed with respective equipment for operating as part of a wireless mesh network, the set of nodes comprising]:
a first subset of nodes that are each installed with respective equipment configured to operate as part of an edge computing platform [see claim 1, lines 5-7, 19-23; a first tier of one or more nodes that are each located at a Point of Presence (PoP) site having fiber access to a core network, wherein at least one node in the first tier is further installed with respective equipment for operating as part of an edge computing platform]; and
a second subset of nodes that each lack respective equipment configured to operate as part of an edge computing platform [see claim 1, lines 8-11, 19-23; a second tier of one or more nodes that are each located at a respective seed site, wherein each node in the second tier is directly connected to at least one node in the first tier via a PoP-to-seed wireless link, wherein at least one node in the second tier is further installed with respective equipment for operating as part of an edge computing platform. Note that the second tier of one or more nodes each lack the respective equipment that installed with the at least one node in the first tier].
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2469
