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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claim 1
The language “in response to determining that the first device is a relay node” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining that the first device is a relay node”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of lines 3-9 are required limitations of the claim:
“in response to determining that the first device is a relay node: in response to the first device being a final hop, removing a fourth address from the frame to generate a first modified frame having a three address format, and relaying, by the first device, the first modified frame to a third device, and in response to the first device not being the final hop, generating a second modified frame having a four address format based on the frame, and relaying the second modified frame to the third device.”
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes the language of lines 3-9 is not required.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to include a positively recite a step of “determining by the first device that the first device is a relay node” between lines 2 and 3.
In reference to claim 5
The language “in response to determining that the second device is an access point (AP) node or a leaf node” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining that the second device is an access point (AP) node or a leaf node”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of lines 2-3 are required limitations of the claim:
“transmitting, by the first device, the frame without modification in response to the first device being the final hop.”
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to first positively recite a step of “determining by the first device that the second device is an access point (AP) node or a leaf node” in line 1.
In reference to claim 6
The language “transmitting, by the first device, the frame with a fourth address of the frame set to a next node in response to the first device being the final hop” renders the claim indefinite because it contradicts the language of parent claim 5 lines 2-3 “transmitting, by the first device, the frame without modification in response to the first device being the final hop” rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
In reference to claim 8
The language in lines 3-5 “in response to the first frame having a four address format, and in response to detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a four address format” and a step of “detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 5 is a required limitation of the claim: “modifying the first hop number of the first device”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite in between lines 2-3 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a four address format” and “detecting by the first device whether a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device”.
In reference to claim 9
The language in lines 1-2 “in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is not served by the first device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a three address format” and a step of “determining the first frame is not served by the first device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 2-3 is a required limitation of the claim: “ignoring, by the first device, the first frame when the first frame is not served by the first device”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite in line 1 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a three address format” and “determining by the first device that the first frame is not served by the first device”.
In reference to claim 10
The language in lines 1-2 “in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a three address format” and a step of “determining the first frame is served by the first device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 2-3 is a required limitation of the claim: “transmitting, by the first device, the first frame without modification in response to the first device being a final hop”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite in line 1 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a three address format” and “determining by the first device that the first frame is served by the first device”.
In reference to claim 11
The language in lines 1-2 “in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a three address format” and a step of “determining the first frame is served by the first device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 2-3 is a required limitation of the claim: “transmitting, by the first device, the first frame in the four address format when the first device is not the final hop”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite in line 1 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a three address format” and “determining by the first device that the first frame is served by the first device”.
In reference to claim 16
The language in lines 3-4“in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a three address format” and a step of “determining the first frame is served by the first device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 4-5 is a required limitation of the claim: “transmitting, by the first device, the first frame in the four address format when the first device is not the final hop”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite between lines 2-3 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a three address format” and “determining by the first device that the first frame is served by the first device”.
In reference to claim 17
The language in lines 1-2 “in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is not served by the first device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a three address format” and a step of “determining the first frame is not served by the first device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of line 2-3 is a required limitation of the claim: “ignoring, by the first device, the first frame when the first frame is not served by the first device”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to first positively recite in line 1 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a three address format” and “determining by the first device that the first frame is not served by the first device”.
In reference to claim 18
The language in lines 1-3 “in response to the first frame having a four address format, and in response to detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device” renders the claim indefinite. The claim fails to first positively recite a step of “determining whether the first frame has a four address format” and a step of “detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device”. Consequently, the scopes of the claim is unclear because it is unclear if the following language of lines 4-5is a required limitation of the claim: “modifying the first hop number of the first device”.
The Examiner recommends overcoming the rejection by amending the claim to positively recite in line 1 a step of “determining by the first device whether the first frame has a four address format” and “detecting by the first device whether a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device”.
In reference to claims 2-4, 7, 12-15, 19-20
Claims 2-4, 7, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al. (US 2009/0003298).
- In reference to claim 1
Chu et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first device (e.g. STA3 695; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061) a frame (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045) from a second device (e.g. MAP2 690; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061);
(following language not required by the claim) and in response to determining that the first device is a relay node: in response to the first device being a final hop, removing a fourth address from the frame to generate a first modified frame having a three address format, and relaying, by the first device, the first modified frame to a third device, and in response to the first device not being the final hop, generating a second modified frame having a four address format based on the frame, and relaying the second modified frame to the third device.
- In reference to claim 2
(following language not required by the claim) 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the three address format is a three address format according to an IEEE 802.11 protocol.
- In reference to claim 3
(following language not required by the claim) 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to the first device not being the final hop, setting a fourth address of the second modified frame to a next node to generate the second modified frame.
- In reference to claim 4
(following language not required by the claim) 4. The method of claim 1, wherein removing the fourth address from the frame comprises removing the fourth address from a medium access control (MAC) header of the frame.
- In reference to claim 5
(following language not required by the claim) 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to determining that the second device is an access point (AP) node or a leaf node, transmitting, by the first device, the frame without modification in response to the first device being the final hop.
- In reference to claim 6
(following language not required by the claim) 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, in response to determining that the second device is an AP node or a leaf node, transmitting, by the first device, the frame with a fourth address of the frame set to a next node in response to the first device being the final hop.
- In reference to claim 7
Chu et al. further teaches wherein the frame is a data frame. (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045)
- In reference to claim 8
Chu et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first device (e.g. STA3 695; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061) a first frame (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045) from a second device (e.g. MAP2 690; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061);
(following language not required by the claim) and in response to the first frame having a four address format, and in response to detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device, modifying the first hop number of the first device.
- In reference to claim 9
(following language not required by the claim) 9. The method of claim 8, in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is not served by the first device, ignoring, by the first device, the first frame when the first frame is not served by the first device.
- In reference to claim 10
(following language not required by the claim) 10. The method of claim 8, in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device, transmitting, by the first device, the first frame without modification in response to the first device being a final hop.
- In reference to claim 11
(following language not required by the claim) 11. The method of claim 8, in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device, transmitting, by the first device, the first frame in the four address format when the first device is not the final hop.
- In reference to claim 12
Chu et al. further teaches wherein the first frame is a data frame. (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045)
- In reference to claim 13
(following language not required by the claim) 13. The method of claim 8, further comprising detecting the circular path based on whether the second device is upstream or downstream from the first device and based on a comparison between the first hop number and the second hop number.
- In reference to claim 14
(following language not required by the claim) 14. The method of claim 8, wherein modifying the first hop number of the first device comprises incrementing the first hop number when the second device is downstream from the first device and the second hop number is not greater than the first hop number.
- In reference to claim 15
(following language not required by the claim) 15. The method of claim 8, wherein modifying the first hop number of the first device comprises decrementing the first hop number when the second device is upstream from the first device and the second hop number is not less than the first hop number.
- In reference to claim 16
Chu et al. teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a first device (e.g. STA3 695; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061) a first frame (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045) from a second device (e.g. MAP2 690; Fig. 8; par. 0057-0061);
(following language not required by the claim) and in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is served by the first device, transmitting, by the first device, the first frame in a four address format when the first device is not a final hop.
- In reference to claim 17
(following language not required by the claim) 17. The method of claim 16, in response to the first frame having a three address format, and in response to determining the first frame is not served by the first device, ignoring, by the first device, the first frame when the first frame is not served by the first device.
- In reference to claim 18
(following language not required by the claim) 18. The method of claim 17, further comprising, in response to the first frame having the four address format, and in response to detecting a circular path based on a network loop is present based on a first hop number of the first device and a second hop number of the second device, modifying the first hop number of the first device.
- In reference to claim 19
Chu et al. further teaches wherein the first frame is a data frame. (e.g. 802.11 six address scheme data frame; par. 0044-0045)
- In reference to claim 20
(following language not required by the claim) 20. The method of claim 16, wherein the three address format is a three address format according to an IEEE 802.11 protocol.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are:
US 8284775 pertains to a six field address scheme identifies both the originating point and the endpoint of a data frame enabling multiple hop forwarding through a plurality of intermediate mesh points in a wireless mesh network. Data frames originating or ending at a point outside of the wireless mesh network access the wireless network at a mesh access point using a legacy address scheme. The legacy address schemes are converted to a six address scheme using a proxy address table at the access point. Each mesh access point includes not only a routing table but a proxy address table as well as enabling the mesh access point, and/or mesh portal points, to convert address schemes having less than six address fields to the six field format. Subsequent to the conversion, mesh points within the wireless mesh network need only the routing table to facilitate the forwarding of the data frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights