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 .
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.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US12156052B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely omit elements from the claims of US12156052B2. It has been held that the omission of 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 Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations [up to and including limitations of parent and intervening claims] in US12156052B2.
Instant Application
US12156052B2
1. A method comprising:
accessing a network graph comprising:
a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and
a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges:
connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and
representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by two nodes;
for each triangle in a set of triangles in the network graph:
calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle; and
for each node in the triangle, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and
in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.
1. A method comprising:
accessing a network graph comprising:
a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and
a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges:
connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and
representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by the pair of nodes…
…for each triangle graph in the network graph:
calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle graph; and
for each node in the triangle graph, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and
in response to detecting a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges; and
identifying the set of triangles, including a set of triangle graphs, in the network graph.
1. …
accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges;
identifying a set of triangle graphs in the network graph…
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11785482B1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely omit elements from the claims of US11785482B1. It has been held that the omission of 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 Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations [up to and including limitations of parent and intervening claims] in US11785482B1.
Instant Application
US11785482B1
1. A method comprising:
accessing a network graph comprising:
a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and
a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges:
connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and
representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by two nodes;
for each triangle in a set of triangles in the network graph:
calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle; and
for each node in the triangle, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and
in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.
1. A method comprising:
accessing a network graph comprising:
a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and
a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges:
connecting a pair of nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by the pair of nodes…
for each triangle graph in the network graph:
calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle graph; and
for each node in the triangle graph, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and
in response to detecting a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges; and
identifying the set of triangles, including a set of triangle graphs, in the network graph.
1. …
accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges;
identifying a set of triangle graphs in the network graph…
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. US12308950B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely omit elements from the claims of US12308950B2. It has been held that the omission of 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 Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 1, US12308950B2 discloses:
“A method comprising: accessing a network graph comprising: a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges: connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by two nodes;” ([claim 18]: “A method comprising: accessing a network graph: representing a set of nodes comprising a set of transmitter nodes connected to a set of transceiver nodes; and comprising a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges: connecting a pair of nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a transmitter represented by a transmitter node, in the set of transmitter nodes, and a transceiver represented by a transceiver node, in the set of transceiver nodes;”)
“for each triangle in a set of triangles in the network graph: calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle; and” ([claim 18]: “accessing a first network state of the first triangle graph, the first network state representing: a first transmitter-transceiver edge value associated with the first transmitter-transceiver edge; and a second transmitter-transceiver edge value associated with the second transmitter-transceiver edge; and based on the first transmitter-transceiver edge value and the second transmitter-transceiver edge value, calculating a subgraph diagnostic score for the first triangle graph.”)
“for each node in the triangle, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and” ([claim 19]: “updating a first node diagnostic score for the first transceiver node based on the subgraph diagnostic score”; [claim 20]: “updating a second node diagnostic score for the second transceiver node based on the subgraph diagnostic score;” Wherein Examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to update a score for a third node of a triangle if already doing so for a first and second node. )
“in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.” ([claim 19]: “and in response to the first node diagnostic score exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a first corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first transceiver node.”)
Regarding claim 18, US11863298B1 further discloses:
“accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges; and identifying the set of triangles, including a set of triangle graphs, in the network graph.” ([claim 18]: “identifying a first triangle graph in the network graph: representing a first transmitter node, in the set of nodes; comprising a first transmitter-transceiver edge connecting the first transmitter node and a first transceiver node; and comprising a second transmitter-transceiver edge connecting the first transmitter node and a second transceiver node; accessing a first network state of the first triangle graph”)
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. US11863298B1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely omit elements from the claims of US11863298B1. It has been held that the omission of 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 Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 1, US11863298B1 discloses:
“A method comprising: accessing a network graph comprising: a set of nodes, each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers; and a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges: connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by two nodes;” ([claim 11]: “A method comprising: accessing a network graph comprising: a set of nodes comprising: a set of transceiver nodes representing a set of transceivers operating in a mesh network of transceivers; and a set of transmitter nodes representing a set of transmitters communicating with the mesh network of transceivers; a set ofedges, each edge in the set ofedges: connecting a pair of nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the mesh network of transceivers represented by the pair of nodes or a communication channel between a transmitter in the set of transmitters and a transceiver in the set of transceivers;”)
“for each triangle in a set of triangles in the network graph: calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle; and” ([claim 11]: “accessing a first network state of the first triangle graph comprising a set of edge values for each edge in the first triangle graph; calculating a component diagnostic score based the set of edge values;”)
“for each node in the triangle, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score; and” ([claim 11]: “and updating a first cumulative diagnostic score for the first node and a second cumulative diagnostic score for the second node based on the component diagnostic score;”)
“in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.” ([claim 11]: “and in response to detecting a first cumulative diagnostic score for the first transceiver node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.”)
Regarding claim 2, US11863298B1 further discloses:
“accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges; and identifying the set of triangles, including a set of triangle graphs, in the network graph.” ([claim 11]: “identifying a first triangle graph in the network graph comprising: a first node in the set of nodes, the first node representing a first transceiver; a second node in the set of nodes, the second node representing a second transceiver; a third node in the set of nodes, the third node representing a first transmitter; a first transceiver-transceiver edge representing a communication channel between the first transceiver and the second transceiver; a first transmitter-transceiver edge representing a ranging signal transmitted from the first transmitter and received by the first transceiver; and a second transmitter-transceiver edge representing the ranging signal transmitted from the first transmitter and received by the second transceiver; accessing a first network state of the first triangle graph comprising a set of edge values for each edge in the first triangle graph;”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200285944 A1) in view of Biswas (US 20200128047 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
“A method comprising: accessing a network graph comprising: a set of nodes… a set of edges, each edge in the set of edges: connecting two nodes in the set of nodes; and representing a communication channel between a pair of transceivers in the network of transceivers represented by two nodes;” ([¶ 0055]: “At block 210, the one or more computing systems receive a graph-structured dataset that identifies a set of entities (e.g., sessions of web-based services or users of social networks), features of the entities (e.g., attributes of the sessions or users), and connections between the entities (e.g., relations or links between the sessions or users). The set of entities is represented by nodes in a graph, where the features of the entities are represented by attributes of the nodes, and the connections between the entities are represented by edges that each connect a pair of nodes in the graph.”)
“for each triangle in a set of triangles in the network graph: calculating a component diagnostic score based on a subset of edge values in the set of edge values, the subset of edge values associated with edges in the triangle; and” ([¶ 0057]: “At block 230, at each graph convolutional layer of the trained graph convolutional network, the one or more computing systems generate an output of the graph convolutional layer based on, for example, input attributes of the nodes, the structure of the graph, and the weight matrix. The output includes, for each node in a set of nodes in the graph, a weighted sum of the attributes of the nodes in the respective motif-induced neighborhood determined by the attention mechanism.”; [¶ 0088]: “FIG. 10A illustrates another example of a graph 1000 where the adjacency is based on triangle motifs according to certain embodiments.”)
“for each node in the triangle, updating a cumulative diagnostic score for the node based on the component diagnostic score…” ([¶ 0058]: “At block 240, the one or more computing systems make an inference regarding the set of entities based on the output at the last graph convolutional layer that includes extracted attributes for the nodes in the graph.”)
Lee does not explicitly disclose “each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers” nor “in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.”
However, Biswas discloses the missing features:
“each node in the set of nodes representing a transceiver in a network of transceivers” ([¶ 0234]: “Merely by way of example, the network(s) 810 can be a local area network (LAN), networks based on Ethernet, Token-Ring, a wide-area network, the Internet, a virtual network, a virtual private network (VPN), an intranet, an extranet, a public switched telephone network (PSTN), an infra-red network, a wireless network (e.g., a network operating under any of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) 802.11 suite of protocols, Bluetooth®, and/or any other wireless protocol), and/or any combination of these and/or other networks.”)
“in response to a first cumulative diagnostic score for a first node exceeding a threshold cumulative diagnostic score, triggering a corrective action at a first transceiver represented by the first node.” ([¶ 0213]: “For example, if a single vertex in the single graph profile has a weight that is different from a corresponding weight of the vertex in the cumulative graph profile by more than a threshold amount, an anomaly may be detected.”; [¶ 0216]: “Some embodiments may also do a holistic comparison between the graphs by aggregating differences before comparison to a threshold. For example, if each of the weights of the vertices was slightly higher than usual, the individual differences of each vertex may not be enough to violate a threshold difference requirement and trigger an anomaly. However, the aggregated differences for each of the vertices in the single graph profile may also be compared to a threshold and used to detect an anomaly.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Lee and Biswas, to modify the technique as disclosed by Lee, to be utilized in a wireless network for triggering corrective actions as disclosed by Biswas. The motivation for doing so is that the technique enhances the effectivity of the corrections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Biswas to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Biswas discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Lee further discloses “accessing a network state comprising a set of edge values for the set of edges; and identifying the set of triangles, including a set of triangle graphs, in the network graph.” ([¶ 0056]: “At block 220, the one or more computing systems perform a training process to train a graph convolutional network that includes two or more graph convolutional layers, for example, using a portion of the graph-structure dataset. The training process determines, for each graph convolutional layer, a weight matrix and an attention mechanism for selecting a motif-induced neighborhood for each respective node in a set of nodes in the graph.”; [¶ 0083]: “As described above, it is not always suitable to use a single uniform definition of node neighborhood, such as the one-hop edge-defined neighborhood (e.g., matrix A in equation (7) or matrix à in equation (9)), for all nodes to propagate information. For example, FIGS. 5A and 5B show that a node benefits from using a neighborhood defined using triangle motifs to keep only neighbors connected via a stronger bond and to distinguish between weaker ties and strong ones via the triangle motifs, or other types of motifs, such as the motifs described with respect to FIG. 6.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights