DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1, 4, 6-12, 14-20
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 6, 9-12, 14-16, 19-20
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 2-3, 5, 13
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-12, 14-20 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 9/9/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 4, and 9-12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2015/0223114) in view of Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) and further in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142).
With respect to Claim 1, Tian teaches a method of enabling a first client node (CN) of a plurality of client nodes to self-direct simultaneous transmission of a common data packet, each CN of the plurality of client nodes being communicatively coupled to a modem termination system (MTS) via a shared communication medium (Figs. 1-2, paras. 9-15; Long-Haul device such as a cable MTS may connect to a plurality of cable modems or access points (client nodes) over a corresponding mediums or a shared medium. Controller may be in access point.)
such that each CN of the plurality of client nodes can communicate with the MTS via the shared communication medium without use of another CN of the plurality of client nodes, (Fig. 1, paras. 15, 20; access points directly connect to long haul device.)
the method comprising: the plurality of client nodes forming a local communication network (LCN) enabling the plurality of client nodes to communicate with each other via the shared communication medium without use of the MTS; (Fig. 1, paras. 13-18; access points form a mesh network to allow for different routes for sent messages to reach the long haul device. For example, 52 shows a communication between devices 16 and 14 without going through CMTS. Clients 26/28 may be in range of multiple access points which allows the clients to communicate with one or more access points. Therefore, clients and access points form a local communication network.)
But Tian does not explicitly teach a data packet destined for a location within the LCN.
Warneke, however, does teach the first CN receiving the common data packet from a first UE of the LCN; the first CN determining that the common data packet is destined for a location within the LCN; (First see Tian, para. 13; client 26 communicates. Then see Warneke, para. 32; transmission of a packet with destination node in header. Fig. 2a, paras. 31-33, 36; nodes such as N3 can send packets to other nodes in the network. See also Sato, Fig. 2, paras. 46-49, 54; communication to wireless terminals rather than communication over transmission line 110.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Tian with the common data packet in order to allow for communication between the devices.
But modified Tian does not explicitly teach simultaneous transmission.
Sato, however, does teach and in response to the first CN determining that the common data packet is destined for a location within the LCN, the first CN (i) activating a first timer, (para. 62; reference clock used to perform timing synchronization. Paras. 74, 78; simultaneous transmission of the same data from multiple access points to improve reception quality.)
and (ii) transmitting the common data packet and transmission timing instructions to a second CN of the plurality of client nodes, to enable at least the second CN to transmit the common data packet to a second UE of the LCN simultaneously with the first CN, and (iii) transmitting the common data packet to the second UE when the first timer expires. (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian with the simultaneous transmission in order to improve reception. (Sato, para. 74)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Tian also teaches wherein the CNs are modems, evolved NodeBs (eNBs), base stations, small cells, microcells, optical network terminals (ONTs), or premises gateways. (para. 14; access point may be cable modem, eNodeB. See also Warneke, para. 32; gateways. See also Sato, paras. 2-3, 56; base station.)
With respect to Claim 9, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Sato also teaches wherein at least two of the CNs of the plurality of client nodes transmit at radio frequencies that are distinct from one another. (para. 54; transmission of the same data using different frequencies.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 10, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Tian also teaches wherein communication between at least two of the CNs of the plurality of client nodes occurs through an intermediary CN. (Fig. 1, para. 18; first hop from 16 to 14, and second hop from 14 to 12. See also Warneke, Fig. 1, para. 31; G102 and G016 are connected through nodes N3 and N6.)
With respect to Claim 11, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Tian also teaches wherein the first CN and/or the second CN is a set of multiple CNs. (Fig. 1, paras. 9-17; plurality of CNs in network such that, e.g., 16 and 18 could be a set while still having a second CN 14. See also Warneke, Fig. 1, para. 31; Plurality of nodes in a mesh network.)
With respect to Claim 12, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Tian also teaches a self-directing client node (CN) within a local communication network (LCN), the self-directing CN comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions therein, which, when executed by the processor, cause the self-directing CN to: (para. 14; access point with controller and processor and memory storing instructions.)
With respect to Claim 14, it is substantially similar to Claim 4, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 15, modified Tian teaches the self-directing CN of Claim 12, and Tian also teaches wherein the processor is in communication with a shared transmission medium operably connecting the self-directing CN with the second CN. (Fig. 1, paras. 13-18; access points form a mesh network to allow for different routes for sent messages to reach the long haul device. See also Warneke, para. 30; wireless mesh network.)
With respect to Claim 19, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Tian also teaches a self-directing modem of a local communication network (LCN) including a shared communication medium in operable communication with (a) a modem termination system (MTS) remote from the LCN, and (b) a second modem different from the self-directing modem, the self-directing modem comprising: (Figs. 1-2, paras. 9-15; Long-Haul device such as a cable MTS may connect to a plurality of cable modems or access points (client nodes) over a corresponding mediums or a shared medium. Controller may be in access point. Fig. 1, paras. 13-18; access points form a mesh network to allow for different routes for sent messages to reach the long haul device.)
a processor; and a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions therein, which, when executed by the processor, cause the self-directing CN to: (para. 14; access point with controller and processor and memory storing instructions.)
With respect to Claim 20, modified Tian teaches the self-directing modem of claim 19, and Tian also teaches wherein the instructions further cause enable the intermediary second remote modem to directly send the first data packet and transmission timing instructions to the first remote modem using a bandwidth allocated for local data transmissions within the LCN. (para. 16; controller may limit throughput for communications on a per device and per direction basis. See also Warneke, paras. 30-31; network 100 may be wired while mesh network 104 is wireless, which means the communication over wireless is bandwidth allocated for local data transmssions. Para. 36; mesh network interface and network interface as different components of gateway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to utilize bandwidth for particular connections to engage in load balancing, see Tian, para. 16.)
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2015/0223114) in view of Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142) and further in view of Finkelstein (US Pub. 2018/0145746).
With respect to Claim 6, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach updating timing instructions.
Finkelstein, however, does teach wherein the transmission timing instructions are updated to account for transmission time prior to being forwarded to a subsequent CN. (paras. 91-93; system takes propagation delay into account when synchronizing timing and modifies commands accordingly.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the modem of modified Tian with the updated timing instructions in order to consider propagation delay in making the synchronized transmission.
With respect to Claim 16, it is substantially similar to Claims 6, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 7-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2015/0223114) in view of Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142), and further in view of Firing Squad (“Firing Squad Synchronization Problem” Wikipedia, 4/13/2020).
With respect to Claim 7, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a minimum time.
Firing Squad, however, does teach wherein the transmission timing instructions designate an amount of time required (i) to recruit a minimum number of CNs, (ii) to recruit all CNs in the LCN, or (iii) for the data packet to travel a selected geographic distance. (pg. 2; minimal time solutions to align n soldiers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian with the minimum time in order to ensure that all devices received the synchronized command.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a firing squad algorithm.
Firing Squad, however, does teach wherein the transmission timing instructions comprise a firing squad algorithm. (pgs. 1-2; firing squad problem for state machines.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian with the firing squad algorithm in order to perform synchronized action.
With respect to Claims 17-18, they are substantially similar to Claims 7-8, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Alternate Grounds
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2015/0223114) in view of Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142) and further in view of Yerramalli (US Pub. 2016/0021661).
With respect to Claim 20, modified Tian teaches the self-directing modem of claim 19, but under this ground of rejection does not explicitly teach a bandwidth allocated for local data transmissions.
Yerramalli, however, does teach wherein the instructions further cause enable the intermediary second remote modem to directly send the first data packet and transmission timing instructions to the first remote modem using a bandwidth allocated for local data transmissions within the LCN. (paras. 6, 12, 79, 163; allocation of bandwidth between channels and scaling bandwidth for particular communications based on what channels are assigned for it.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian with the allocated bandwidth in order to scale resources to where they should be used for the system. (Yerramalli, paras. 6, 12, 79, 163)
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 10-14 that no references teach “in response to the first CN determining that the common data packet is destined for a location within the LCN, the first CN (i) activating a first timer…”
The combination renders obvious. Warneke taught delivery of packets to local destinations. Although Applicant disputes the finding that Warneke doesn’t teach determining a node is destined for a local destination, Applicant does not dispute that nodes provided routing to local destinations rather than traversing a backhaul. Similarly, newly cited Tian allows for communication that includes routing amongst different access points and the clients connected to them. Tian explicitly posits a first access point 12 directly routing to a second access point 14 and that clients may be connected to access points. Client 12 sending a message to another client connected to access point 14 would be a communication destined for a local access. Sato similarly has communication connections to wireless terminals that need not use the transmission line to the center node. The determination claimed is a common feature of routing actions that do not traverse the backhaul.
Applicant further argues that Sato does not activate a timer in response to a determination, but again the feature is obvious over the combination. When a local communication uses the wireless medium to a wireless terminal in Sato, there is a concern that the wireless terminal will not have optimal reception. The use of the simultaneous transmission technique is therefore motivated in the local communication case because it improves reception for the wireless communication.
The amended claims remain obvious. All claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
