Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This communication is response to claims filed on 03/17/25.
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Claims 1 & 17-18 are amended.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's failed to file a terminal disclaimer regarding an obviousness double patenting rejection. Therefore, the obviousness double patenting rejection is maintained.
6. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on 03/17/25, regarding to a 103 rejection (claims 1-18) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
7. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
8. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Morris et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11, 349, 603 B2), in view of Fatih (hereinafter referred as Fatih) International Publication No. WO 2010/006206 A1.
Regarding claim 18: Morris discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, at a first node in a first network, first data (See Claim 1; line 32);
forwarding, using a processor, the first data between the first node to a second node in a second network, using a network relay (See Claim 1; lines 32-34), wherein the network relay uses a first operative coupling of the first network via a second operative coupling of the second network, wherein the first operative coupling uses a first interface hardware component of the first network, and the second operative coupling uses a second interface hardware component of the second network (See Claim 1; lines 24-29);
disabling, using the processor, subsequent to forwarding the first data and in response to determining that the decoupling condition is met, the second operative coupling while the first operative coupling remains enabled for receiving second data for forwarding (See Claim 1; lines 39-44).
Morris discloses determining, using the processor, that a specified decoupling condition is met (See Claim 1; lines 35-38), but doesn’t discloses determining, using the processor, that a specified decoupling condition based on an idle period is met, wherein the specified decoupling condition relates to a network activity.
However, Fatih from the same field of endeavor discloses determining, using the processor, that a specified decoupling condition based on an idle period is met, wherein the specified decoupling condition relates to a network activity (See FIG. 1 & Para. 0093; “As represented by block 902, the access terminal 102 (e.g., the communication controller 320) determines whether access to a local network (i.e., local breakout) is needed. For example, the access terminal 102 may elect to turn off its local link interface when the local link has been idle for a certain amount of time so that the access terminal 102 will not be paged for any packet on the local link. [0094] As represented by blocks 904 and 906, if local access is not needed, the access terminal 102 (e.g., the communication controller 320) disables the local link interface. For example, the access terminal 102 may release the corresponding IP address and "switch off" the corresponding L2 link. In some implementations, to save additional power, the access terminal 102 may turn off one or more components associated with the local link interface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include determining, using the processor, that a specified decoupling condition based on an idle period is met as taught by Fatih into a system of Morris for accessing local services efficiently and effectively (See Fatih; Para. 0006; lines 6-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-18 would be allowed if the applicants amend the claims or file a terminal disclaimer against the parent application No. 11, 349, 603.
Conclusion
10. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Reed et al. 2003/0134648 A1 (Title: Machine for providing a dynamic data base of geographic location information for a plurality of wireless device) (See Para. 0029, 0031 & 0033).
B. Zhu et al. 2014/0274179 A1 (Title: System and method for adjusting a power transmission level for a communication for a communication device) (See Abstract, Para. 0035-0037 & 0057).
C. Doshi et al. 2022/0113790 A1 (Title: Intent-driven power management) (See Para. 0029, 0031 & 0033).
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights