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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are unpersuasive.
Rejections under 112(b)
2. Applicant argues that the amendments have address the 112 issues previously cited.
Examiner agrees that the amendments have addressed the 112 issues.
Rejections under 103
3. Applicant argues that Callaghan does not disclose or suggest techniques in which the remote device 606 is tethered to the device 602 such that a second local proxy server receives data from the remote device 606 and forwards the data to the local proxy server 610 for subsequent forwarding to an external proxy server.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For clarify of combination, Examiner applies Callaghan as the primary reference and Bartlett as the secondary reference. Callaghan teaches a legacy device and remote device which are tethered (i.e. that are functionally communicatively connected) and a local proxy server and an remote/external proxy server, which are configured to route traffic across them, i.e. receiving and forwarding traffic from the two devices.
Regarding the second local proxy server, Examiner views this as an obvious to try variation of Callaghan in light of Bartlett wherein it would be obvious to implement a second local proxy sever as taught by Bartlett, as distributing workloads across multiple redundant hardware elements is well known without the art.
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.
4. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callaghan (US 20070074280 A1) in view of Bartlett et al. (US 20170048104 A1), Shribman et al. (US 20220103525 A1), and Turnbull et al. (US 20240114065 A1).
Claim 1 Callaghan teaches a first local proxy server (FIG. 6, Local Proxy 610) configured to (i) receive traffic (¶0051, wherein the local proxy server 610 and the remote proxy server 612 can re-route communications to and from the device 602 and remote device 606, i.e. receives traffic from both Device 606 and Device 602) from (a) the first electronic device (FIG. 6, Device 606) and (b) at least one second electronic device (FIG. 6, Device 602) tethered to the first electronic device; (Examiner interprets “tethering” as devices having some configured connection between them, ¶0006, wherein a legacy device is not compatible for use with the internet and connect with another device, i.e. tethers, to use the internet)
receiving, at the first local proxy server, the traffic from the at least one second electronic device. (¶0051, wherein traffic from the second electronic device can be re-routed to first local proxy server) and
forwarding, using the first local proxy server, the traffic from the first electronic device and the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to an external proxy server. (¶0051, traffic from device 602 and 605 can be re-routed to remote proxy server 612)
However, Callaghan does not teach executing a second local proxy server;
obtaining, at a first electronic device, a first proxy auto-configuration (PAC) file;
a first local proxy server configured to forward the traffic based on the first PAC file; and
forwarding, using the first local proxy server, the traffic from the first electronic device and the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to an external proxy server.
From a related technology, Bartlett teaches executing, by the first electronic device, a first local proxy server; (Bartlett, FIG. 5, step A, ¶0017, a plurality of local proxies executing on a first electronic device) and
executing, by the first electronic device, a second local proxy server. (Bartlett, FIG. 5, step A, ¶0017, a plurality of local proxies executing on a first electronic device)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the second local proxy server of Bartlett to further manage the re-routing of traffic between the legacy and remote devices of Callaghan in order to more effective manage network processes. Specifically, it is a well-known technique in the art to distribute workloads over multiple instances of hardware, it would be obvious to try implementing a second local proxy server that functions the same as the first local proxy in that it receives and forwards specified traffic.
However, Callaghan in view of Bartlett does not explicitly teach obtaining, at a first electronic device, a first proxy auto-configuration (PAC) file;
a first local proxy server configured to forward the traffic based on the first PAC file; and
forwarding, using the first local proxy server, the traffic from the first electronic device and the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to an external proxy server.
From a related technology, Shribman teaches obtaining, at a first electronic device, a first proxy auto-configuration (PAC) file; (¶0347, obtaining a PAC file) and
executing a first local proxy server configured to forward the traffic based on the first PAC file (¶0345, wherein a PAC file controls the direction of traffic) to an external proxy server.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bartlett in view of Callaghan in order to incorporate well-known techniques, such as proxy auto-configuration files as utilized by Shribman in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
However does not explicitly teach a second local proxy server configured to receive the traffic from the at least one second electronic device and forward the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to the first local proxy server.
From a related technology, Turnbull teaches executing a second local proxy server (Turnbull, FIG. 3, ¶0042, Proxy Y 308 being a second local proxy being local to network 300) configured to forward the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to the first local proxy server. (FIG. 3, ¶0052, Proxy Y forwarding traffic from device 304 to Proxy X)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bartlett in view of Callaghan and Shribman to corporate the proxy techniques used in Turnbull in order to more effectively handle the traffic between network elements thereby more effectively utilizing network resources.
Claim 6 Callaghan in view of Bartlett, Shribman, and Turnbull teaches Claim 1, and further teach wherein the first local proxy server supports a virtual private network (VPN) proxy (Shribman, ¶0190, wherein the proxy servers support VPN services) and allows the traffic from the at least one second electronic device to be provided to an external VPN server. (Examiner notes that “allowing the traffic… to be provided” only requires that the prior art does not explicitly prohibit the flow of such traffic)
Claim 7 Callaghan in view of Bartlett, Shribman, and Turnbull teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the traffic from the at least one second electronic device is provided to the external proxy server (Bartlett, FIG. 2, ¶0017, sending the traffic to the global proxy network, which comprise an external proxy server) using the first local proxy server for delivery to at least one destination. (Turnbull, FIG.3, ¶0042, Proxy X 306 being a first local proxy server; wherein the servers a local to network 300)
Claims 8 and 13-14 are taught by Callaghan in view of Bartlett, Shribman, and Turnbull as described for Claim 1 and 6-7 respectively.
Claims 15 and 20 are taught by Callaghan in view of Bartlett, Shribman, and Turnbull as described for Claim 1 and 6 respectively.
5. Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett et al. (US 20170048104 A1) in view of Callaghan (US 20070074280 A1), Shribman et al. (US 20220103525 A1), and Turnbull et al. (US 20240114065 A1) and in further view of Kann et al. (US 20210029197 A1).
Claim 2 Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, and Turnbull teaches Claim 1, and further teaches creating, by the first electronic device, a first network interface on the first electronic device; (Shribman, ¶0811, wherein an interface comprises a virtual network interface, wherein virtual interfaces are created by respective devices) and
initiating, by the first electronic device, creation of a second network interface on each of the at least one second electronic device. (Shribman, ¶0811, wherein an interface comprises a virtual interface, wherein virtual interfaces are created by respective devices)
However, Bartlett in view of Turnbull and Shribman does not explicitly teach providing a second PAC file to the at least one second electronic device, the second PAC file identifying a network address and a port associated with the second local proxy server.
From a related technology, Kann teaches providing a second PAC file to the at least one second electronic device, the second PAC file identifying a network address and a port associated with the second local proxy server. (¶0044, wherein a PAC file identifies a related address and port)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Bartlett in view of Turnbull and Shribman to incorporate the teachings of Kann in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 3 Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, Turnbull and Kann teaches Claim 2, and further teaches the first network interface on the first electronic device is configured to function as an access point visible to the at least one second electronic device; (Examiner notes that it is a basic function of a network interface to be a visible access point, and as such this generic configuration would teach the claim limitation) and each second network interface on each of the at least one second electronic device is configured to download the second PAC file. (Examiner notes that it is a basic quality of a network interface to download data, and that this generic configuration would teach the recited claim limitation, i.e. only generic downloading function is necessary)
Claim 4 Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, Turnbull and Kann teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the first electronic device provides the second PAC file to each of the at least one second electronic device during an assignment of a network address to the second network interface of that second electronic device. (Examiner notes that “during an assignment of a network address” comprises a contingent limitation, wherein the contingency is not required by the claims and therefore does not have patentable weight)
Claim 5 Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, Turnbull and Kann teaches Claim 2, and further teaches the first PAC file is obtained after enabling of a proxy configuration of the first electronic device; (Examiner notes that “after enabling of a proxy configuration” comprises a contingent limitation, wherein the contingency is not required by the claims and therefore does not have patentable weight) and the second PAC file is provided after enabling of a tethering function of the first electronic device. (Examiner notes that “after enabling of a proxy configuration” comprises a contingent limitation, wherein the contingency is not required by the claims and therefore does not have patentable weight)
Claims 9-12 are taught by Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, Turnbull and Kann as described for Claims 2-5.
Claims 16-19 are taught by Bartlett in view of Callaghan, Shribman, Turnbull and Kann as described for Claims 2-4.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights