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 .
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of 17/354711, 63/184873, 63/042094 filed 6/22/2021, 5/6/2021, 6/22/2020, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/27/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
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 1-5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142).
With respect to Claim 1, Warneke teaches a method of enabling a first client node (CN) within a plurality of client nodes to self-direct simultaneous transmission of a common data packet, the method comprising: a first CN (Simultaneous transmission will be taught later. Fig. 1, para. 31; Mesh network including gateway nodes and mesh network nodes. Para. 32; transmission of a packet.)
But Warneke does not explicitly teach simultaneous transmission.
Sato, however, does teach activating a first timer and transmitting the common data packet and transmission timing instructions to a second CN; (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.)
the second CN receiving the common data packet and transmission timing instructions, activating a second timer, and forwarding the common data packet and the transmission timing instructions to an n.sup.th CN; (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point.)
the n.sup.th CN receiving the common data packet and the transmission timing instructions and starting an n.sup.th timer, where n is an integer greater than or equal to 3; (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point. Para. 44-45; number of access points may be 3 or more. Further, duplication of parts is not a patentable act, see MPEP 2144.)
and the first CN, the second CN, and the n.sup.th CN simultaneously transmitting the common data packet when the first, second, and n.sup.th timers expire. (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Warneke with the simultaneous transmission in order to improve reception. (Sato, para. 74)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein the plurality of CNs forms a local communication network.(Fig. 1, paras. 30-32; wireless mesh network, which is a local communication network.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 2, and Warneke also teaches wherein the common data packet comprises a destination address within the local communication network. (para. 32; destination node in header.)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein the CNs are modems, evolved NodeBs (eNBs), base stations, small cells, microcells, optical network terminals (ONTs), or premises gateways. (para. 32; gateways. See also Sato, paras. 2-3, 56; base station.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein each of the CNs is connected to a shared transmission medium. (para. 30; wireless mesh network.)
With respect to Claim 9, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein at least two of the CNs 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 Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein communication between at least two of the CNs occurs through an intermediary CN. (Fig. 1, para. 31; G102 and G016 are connected through nodes N3 and N6.)
With respect to Claim 11, modified Warneke teaches the method of claim 1, and Warneke also teaches wherein the first CN, the second CN, and/or the nth CN is a set of multiple CNs. (Fig. 1, para. 31; Plurality of nodes in a mesh network.)
With respect to Claim 12, Warneke teaches a self-directing client node (CN) within a local communication network (LCN), 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: (Fig. 1, para. 31; Mesh network including gateway nodes and mesh network nodes. Para. 32; transmission of a packet. Para. 36; processor, memory.)
But Warneke does not explicitly teach simultaneous transmission.
Sato, however, does teach activate a first timer; transmit a common data packet and transmission timing instructions to a first remote CN operating within the LCN; (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.)
enable the first remote CN to (i) activate a second timer, and (ii) forward the common data packet and the transmission timing instructions to an nth remote CN operating within the LCN; (This limitation discusses the actions of an unclaimed device and is not limiting on the claim. Regardless, see Sato, paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point.)
enable the nth remote CN to start an nthtimer; wherein the nth remote CN is different from the self-directing CN and the first remote CN, wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3. (This limitation discusses the actions of an unclaimed device and is not limiting on the claim. Regardless, see Sato, paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point. Para. 44-45; number of access points may be 3 or more. Further, duplication of parts is not a patentable act, see MPEP 2144.)
and self-direct transmission of the common data packet simultaneously with the first and nth remote CNs upon expiration of the first, second, and nth timers, (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the node of Warneke with the simultaneous transmission in order to improve reception. (Sato, para. 74)
With respect to Claims 13-15, they are substantially similar to Claims 3-5, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 6, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 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 Warneke 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 Warneke 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.
With respect to Claim 19, Warneke 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 first remote modem different from the self-directing modem, 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: (A MTS will be taught later. Fig. 1, para. 31; Mesh network including gateway nodes and mesh network nodes. Para. 32; transmission of a packet. Para. 36; processor, memory.)
receive a first data packet from a first UE within the LCN for transmission to a second UE within the LCN different from the first UE; (Fig. 2a, paras. 31-33, 36; nodes such as N3 can send packets to other nodes in the network. Fig. 1; not all nodes are directly connected to each other.)
identify the first data packet as including local data regarding the LCN; (para. 32; packets have destination address which allows for identifying destination of data. See also Fig. 3, para. 36; mesh network interface 306 and network interface 308 for communicating with the mesh network and other networks as determined by processor.)
forward the first data packet, along with transmission timing instructions directly, without first passing through the MTS, to an intermediary second remote modem that is (i) within the LCN, and (ii) in communication with the shared communication medium; (Fig. 3, para. 36; Mesh Network interface transmitter for transmitting to another device in the mesh network. Figs. 2a-b, paras. 33-34, 39; nodes maintain timing information which identify times at which they transmit data. para. 33; gateway or managing node determines transmission timing and frame is used by the node, which suggests the transmission of timing instructions to the node. Para. 36; gateway manages network by adding or removing frames from network. Fig. 1, para. 31; direct communication between devices. See also Finkelstein, para. 27; direct communication.)
But Warneke does not explicitly teach simultaneous transmission.
Sato, however, does teach enable the intermediary second remote modem to directly send the first data packet and transmission timing instructions to the first remote modem over an inter-modem interface that (i) is separate from the shared communication medium, and (b) does not pass through the MTS; and (This limitation discusses the actions of an unclaimed device and is not limiting on the claim. Regardless, see Sato, paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission. Paras. 62-63; distribution of a reference clock to each access point.)
transmit, over a segment of the shared communication medium that does not pass through the MTS, the first data packet directly to the second UE simultaneously with a direct transmission of the first data packet from the first remote modem to the second UE, (paras. 74, 78; plurality of access points perform simultaneous transmission.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the modem of Warneke with the simultaneous transmission in order to improve reception. (Sato, para. 74)
But modified Warneke does not explicitly teach DOCSIS.
Finkelstein, however, does teach (a) a modem termination system (MTS) remote from the LCN, (paras. 45, 50, 52-53, 56; cable modem termination system (CMTS) in communication with a cable modem. Further, Examiner notes Applicant admits a CMTS in communication with a CM existed, see Spec, Background, para. 4)
wherein the first data packet is configured for transmission among the self-directing, first remote, and second remote modems within the LCN according to a Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) protocol. (paras. 33, 54, 67; DOCSIS formatted frames.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the modem of modified Warneke with DOCSIS in order to communicate using a standardized protocol for interoperability.
With respect to Claim 20, modified Warneke teaches the self-directing modem of claim 19, and Warneke 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. (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.)
Claims 7-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over 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 Warneke 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 Warneke with the minimum time in order to ensure that all devices received the synchronized command.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Warneke 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 Warneke 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 Warneke (US Pub. 2018/0046242) in view of Sato (US Pub. 2017/0156142), in view of Finkelstein (US Pub. 2018/0145746) and further in view of Yerramalli (US Pub. 2016/0198518).
With respect to Claim 20, modified Warneke 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 Warneke 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
Examiner notes the Parent Application 17/354711 has matured into Patent 12,267,184. Examiner makes no Double Patenting rejection at this time.
Examiner supplements the record with prior art publications as to the firing squad algorithm being iterated on and applied to computer science over the course of some 20 years prior to the instant effective filing date.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights