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 the communications for the present US application number 18/923,174 last filed on October 22nd, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, directed to DETERMINING NETWORK RELIABILITY USING MESSAGE SUCCESS RATES.
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.
More specifically, in claim 1, the claimed steps established:
1) an “message success rate” for a connection segment “from the first node to a second node” and this can be interpreted as first node [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node or second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node, as long as they are neighboring nodes. The direction of the flow is also unclear, because of the term “from” in the phrase when in reference to the connection “from the first node to the second node” is confusing. So, it is unclear if the claim is requiring a message success rate that is in reference to the flow going either like first node [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node or second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node. The later steps forces the interpretation one way that goes against the plan text meaning in this phrase.
2) The second limitation established a message success rate that’s referring to the section from a source to the second node through an intermediary. received at the first node, which means the arrangement needs to be source node [Wingdings font/0xE0] one or more intermediary nodes [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node.
3) The third limitation is a sum of the first two established message success rates, which also further means, the first arrangement should be second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node, as the first node is furthest away from the source node.
From these established points, the final step requires the selected route to go from the source [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] ending with the first node. And based upon this interpretation, the determination required knowing the message success rate in the last section between the second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node. This goes against the directional flow, if the earlier section requires the first node [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node. In terms of arrangements, {source node [Wingdings font/0xE0] (+1 or more intermediary nodes) [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node} is the only arrangement that makes sense and not {source node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node (as the intermediary node or more between source to second node) [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node, because of all the calculated success rates over each required segment that the system needs to know before making the determined routing.
Therefore, with respect to the phrase in the first limitation “…a received message success rate associated with a connection from the first node to the second node…” the term “from” should be changed to something like “between” (“…a received message success rate associated with a connection between the first node to the second node…”). This is further evidenced by claim 2’s further definition in the first limitation that this received message success rate is actually referring to first node receiving from the second node. Therefore, the word “from” in the phrase when in reference to the connection “from the first node to the second node” is confusing. Claim 2’s definition phrasing should’ve already been incorporated within claim 1 to begin with.
Dependent claims like 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19 that refer to this segment between the second and the first nodes are all directly affected. The other dependent claims following the independent claims under this ambiguous language are also affected.
Please review and amend accordingly.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,358 B2 in view of U.S. Patent Publication US 2008/0205420 A1 to Srikrishna et al.. More specifically, using independent claim 1 for example, while the claims are not identical, the current pending claims are very similar in selecting a route based on calculated or received message success rate across one or more nodes. The slight variation in the differences between the pending claims and the parent allowed claims, with respect to the direction of the flow in the last limitation step of claim 1 for example can be accounted for and made obvious as supplemented from Srikrishna’s applied teachings, which described of different scenarios and arrangements as described within the various examples.
Claims 1-20 are further rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,483,224 B1 in view of U.S. Patent Publication US 2008/0205420 A1 to Srikrishna et al.. More specifically, using independent claim 1 for example, while the claims are not identical, the current pending claims are now broader in scope, while still calculated uplink/downlink message success rates across one or more nodes, and selecting a route accordingly. The variation in the differences between the current pending claims and the allowed claims, can be accounted for and made obvious as supplemented from Srikrishna’s applied teachings, which described of different scenarios and arrangements as described within the various examples.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20080205420 A1 to Srikrishna et al. (referred to hereafter as “Srikrishna”).
As to claim 1, Srikrishna discloses a method comprising:
computing, at a first node in a mesh network, a received message success rate associated with a connection from the first node to a second node, wherein the second node is a neighbor node to the first node (Examiner’s Note: See the corresponding 35 USC § 112(b) rejection regarding this step.
Srikrishna discloses of a similar network of nodes, where each segment between nodes have a messaging rate and a percentage or probability for each direction of the respective segment. Looking at Figs. 1-4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that almost any arrangement is possible. For this limitation step, one of ordinary skill in the art can interpret a simple arrangement, starting with a source node or gateway [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node [Wingdings font/0xE0] first node. Srikrishna’s system can also determine and map out success rates for both directions with each segment. In Fig. 4, a first node (426) can determine for example the success rate going from the first node (426) to the second node (424) at 50% success rate (e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 4, between 426 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 424).
Also, alternatively, the first node (426) can also determine the success rate for the connection segment between nodes 424 and itself, as in reaching itself with a 90% success rate);
receiving, at the first node, from the second node, a first accumulated received message success rate, wherein the first accumulated received message success rate comprises a single value that represents a success rate for received messages associated with a path from a source to the second node through one or more intermediary connections (From Figs. 2 and 4, it is obvious that there can be different levels of hierarchy of nodes as well as the system being able to determine an accumulated success rate for messages spanning two levels or more, as evident from Fig. 4.
While the current language mentions a path from the source to the second node via or through an intermediary, Srikrishna’s Fig. 4 illustrates an accumulated success rates across longer pathways, but does not specifically illustrate any intermediary nodes between the source and the second node 424.
However, it should still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that there can be more levels in the hierarchy (like Fig. 2) and since every possible segment in Fig. 4 is calculated and labeled, if more intermediary nodes and/or levels were added, those segment success rates and accumulated rates would also be identified and calculated. For now, we can interpret the success rate from GW 410 to node 424 as the total accumulated rate of 90% success rate);
computing, at the first node and based on the first accumulated received message success rate and the received message success rate, a second accumulated received message success rate for a route from the source to the first node using the path from the source to the second node (Following the above steps, given the two % numbers calculated (e.g., 90% for the first segment and also 90% for an accumulated pathway) the first node 426 can further calculate another second accumulated rate spanning the entire pathway from the source 410 to 426, which Srikrishna’s Fig. 4 illustrates as going down path 448 with a success rate of 90% as well);
selecting, by the first node and based on the second accumulated received message success rate, the second node from a plurality of neighbor nodes (Following the above steps and interpretations, node 426 can select path 448 over alternatives like path 446 which used different intermediary node(s), e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 4); and
receiving, by the first node, a message from the source via the second node (Following the above steps and interpretations, the first node 426 would receive the data, based upon the selected path 448, based on the calculated % numbers calculated over the different segments).
As to claim 2, Srikrishna further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the received message success rate associated with the connection from the first node to the second node indicates a probability of the first node successfully receiving the message from the second node (Following claim 1’s interpretations and examples, this definition for this calculated segment is now made more clear (or should have been clarified in claim 1), that the rate tied to or associated with the connection from the first node to the second is or should be interpreted as the success rate of the message going from the second node 424 to the first node 426, at the 90% success rate, which Srikrishna also already discloses, e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 4);
the first accumulated received message success rate indicates a probability of the second node successfully receiving the message from the source (Following claim 1’s interpretations and examples, once again using Fig. 4, each segment has a calculated success rate for the messages. And so, between the source 410 to the second node 424, in this example, the calculated “accumulated” rate would be 90%, with the assumption that any intermediary nodes are also factored in. As already explained in claim 1, if there were more intermediary nodes being added, it’s possible that there may be a different “accumulated” success rate, e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 2 and 4); and
the second accumulated received message success rate indicates a probability of the first node successfully receiving the message from the source via the second node (Following claim 1, the second accumulated success rate is the path via the second node, which is already calculated as a total over the different segments between the source and the first node, e.g., Srikrishna: Figs. 2 and 4).
As to claim 3, Srikrishna further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving 90%, at the first node, one or more periodic messages from the second node, wherein the one or more periods messages include updates to the first accumulated received message success rate (periodic updates, e.g., Srikrishna: ¶¶ 63 and 66).
As to claim 5, Srikrishna further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the first node, the second accumulated received message success rate to a third node (Following claim 1’s steps and interpretations, the second accumulated success rate is referring to the pathway from the source to the first node, and if this is passed along to a third node, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that we can interpret and add more intermediary nodes to Srikrishna’s Fig. 4 example, and this is similar to how the first accumulated success rate of the source [Wingdings font/0xE0] second node was passed along to the first node, and now this accumulated success rate is further passed along to a new third node, e.g., Srikrishna: Figs. 2 and 4).
As to claim 8, Srikrishna further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing, at the first node, a transmitted message success rate associated with the connection from the first node to the second node (Following claim 1 and using Fig. 4, the segment from node 426 to 424 has a success rate of 50%); and
computing, at the first node and based on a first accumulated transmitted message success rate and the transmitted message success rate, a second accumulated transmitted message success rate for the route from the first node to the source using the second node, wherein the first accumulated transmitted message success rate is received from the second node and is associated with the intermediary connections between the second node and the source (Following claim 1, and also similar to claim 1, a second accumulated transmitted message success rate is for the accumulated routing from the first node back to the source and Srikrishna’s Fig. 4 is illustrative of this concept as well, such as with pathway 444 at 40% success going back to the source, via the second node, e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 4);
wherein the selecting of the second node is further based on the second accumulated transmitted message success rate (Following the above steps and looking at Fig. 4, pathway 444 with 40% success via the second node 424 is selected over other accumulated paths, like 442 at 30% success (a coincidence), e.g., Srikrishna: Fig. 4).
As to claim 9, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, as the slight variation with the added downlink/uplink directions are still interpreted and taught and/or suggested by Srikrishna’s teachings.
As to claim 10, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 11, Srikrishna further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 9, wherein receiving the first accumulated downlink success rate comprises receiving a beacon message from the second node (the routing packets are referred to as beacon packets/messages, e.g., Srikrishna: ¶¶ 24-25, 28, 41 and 44-45).
As to claim 13, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 16, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 as the variation in the labeling by referring to the message success rate as a reception reliability metric would still be interpreted in a similar fashion as taught and/or suggested by Srikrishna’s teachings.
As to claim 17, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5, where a hierarchy can be established, given Srikrishna’s various examples such as with the use of upstream and downstream nodes.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 8.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20080205420 A1 to Srikrishna in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20200092791 A1 to Arvidson et al. (referred to hereafter as “Arvidson”).
As to claim 4, Srikrishna does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the first accumulated received message success rate as an entry in a table, wherein the entry is associated with the second node (Srikrishna does not expressly discloses of any tables and entries.
Arvidson more expressly discloses of tables for storing entries of these success rate values (e.g., Arvidson: ¶¶ 24 and 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Arvidson’s teachings within Srikrishna’s overall system and teachings because the resulting combined system can better improve on performance by getting a sense of all of the other rates in the other pathways).
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20080205420 A1 to Srikrishna in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20110164527 A1 to Mishra et al. (referred to hereafter as “Mishra”).
As to claim 6, Srikrishna does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first accumulated received message success rate is expressed in a first resolution (See below); and
computing the second accumulated received message success rate comprises scaling the second accumulated received message success rate to the first resolution (For these two limitation features, Srikrishna does not expressly discloses of adjusting the success rates with any resolution changes.
Mishra more expressly discloses of manipulating and calculating the reception of the signs at various different resolutions (e.g., Mishra: ¶ 249).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Mishra’s teachings of manipulating the resolutions, into Srikrishna’s overall system and teachings, because the resulting combined system would have better performance after getting data on the neighboring nodes and getting a bigger perspective at different resolutions).
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 9 and 6, wherein the different segments, whether evaluated individually or together in an accumulated total success rate, can all be manipulated and scaled to various different resolutions as needed, based upon Mishra’s incorporated teachings.
Claims 7, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20080205420 A1 to Srikrishna in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20070047499 A1 to Montojo et al. (referred to hereafter as “Montojo”).
As to claim 7, Srikrishna does not fully further disclose of the method of claim 1, wherein computing the second accumulated received message success rate comprises:
adjusting the received message success rate associated with the connection from the first node to the second node by an offset (See below); and
adjusting the first accumulated received message success rate by the offset (Srikrishna does not expressly discloses of adjusting the success rates with any offsets.
Montojo more expressly discloses of the ability to adjust the received signals by an offset, to reduce errors, based on a signal to noise ratio (e.g., Montojo: ¶ 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Montojo’s teachings of adjusting the received signals, into Srikrishna’s overall system and teachings, because the resulting combined system would be getting better signals through, along with less noise interference).
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejections of claim 9 and 7.
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 9 and 7 because an offset value can be a variable value within a range of values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights