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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to amendment filed on 08/08/2025. In this amendment, claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14-15, 17, 19-20 and 23 are amended, claim 11 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, 17-20 and 23 are pending, with claims 1, 14 and 23 being independent.
Priority
This application which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application CN202211317218, filed 10/26/2022.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Claims
Objection are withdrawn in view of amended claims.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 13-14, 20 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022).
As per claim 1, Tabourin discloses a gateway device (Tabourin fig. 2, Mobile Gateway 20), comprising:
a processor (Tabourin fig. 2, Processor of Mobile Gateway 20); and
a memory coupled to the processor and stored with instructions that, when executed by the processor (Tabourin fig. 2, Memory of Mobile Gateway 20), cause the gateway device to perform, during a connection of the gateway device to an external (Tabourin fig. 4A, Mobile Gateway 20 receives packet 56 from client 16; Tabourin fig. 4A and para. [0019], The packet 56 is re-encapsulated in a system packet 62 for transmission to the fixed gateway 22 using the service connection 60 and via the network 24. The fixed gateway 22 relays the packet 56 to its destination) network via a mobile network (Tabourin fig. 2, connection of Gateway 20 to fixed part 12 via LTE network 38 and para. [0011], fixed part 12, such as a corporate or municipal intranet or the like):
receiving, from a first networked device, a data packet to be forwarded to a second networked device via the gateway device (Tabourin fig. 2, application 30 running on client device 16; Tabourin para. [0019], If an application 30 [of first device] in the mobile part 14, for example, attempts to communicate 52 with a server 18 [second device] in the fixed part 12; Tabourin fig. 4A, Mobile Gateway 20 receives packet 56 from client 16).
Tabourin does not explicitly disclose:
determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume; and
automatically intercepting the data packet when the data volume of the data packet is greater than the threshold data volume.
Ihlar teaches:
determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 11-13, at step 220, it is determined at the first node whether the size of a packet received from a network host (e.g. an application client for uplink packets, an application server for downlink packets) exceeds the first MTU size threshold; Ihlar pg. 4 line 29, MTU = X bytes); and
automatically intercepting the data packet when the data volume of the data packet is greater than the threshold data volume (Per specification of examined application, paragraph 60 shows that intercepting the data packet includes discarding the data packet]. Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping [intercepting] the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Tabourin in view of Ihlar in order to incorporate determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume; and automatically intercepting the data packet when the data volume of the data packet is greater than the threshold data volume by a gateway device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of controlling and/or enforcing the Maximum Transmission Unit size for data traffic in 4G and 5G networks (see pg. 4 lines 14-15).
As per claim 13, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 1, as set forth above, Ihlar also discloses wherein the intercepting the data packet comprises:
returning a rejection signal to the first networked device (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet).
Similar rationale in claim 1 is applied
Per claims 14 and 23, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 1. As such, claims 14 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As per claim 20, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 14, as set forth above, Ihlar also discloses wherein:
the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume and the intercepting the data packet are performed in response to determining that the gateway device is configured to enable an application layer interception function, or
the intercepting the data packet comprises returning a rejection signal to the first networked device (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Kosseifi et al. (US 2018/0183940, Pub. Date: Jun. 28, 2018).
As per claim 2, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 1, as set forth above, Tabourin also discloses the connection of the gateway device to the external network (Tabourin fig. 4A, Mobile Gateway 20 receives packet 56 from client 16; Tabourin fig. 4A and para. [0019], The packet 56 is re-encapsulated in a system packet 62 for transmission to the fixed gateway 22 using the service connection 60 and via the network 24. The fixed gateway 22 relays the packet 56 to its destination).
Tabourin does not explicitly disclose:
switching the connection to the external network via a fixed network to via the mobile network; or
switching the connection to the external network via the mobile network to via a fixed network.
Kosseifi teaches:
switching the connection to the external network via the mobile network to via a fixed network (Kosseifi para. [0021], if it is detected that the application has exceeded a per-application cellular network [mobile network] data usage limitation and an instruction is sent to the endpoint device notifying of the exceeding of the limitation, the endpoint device may then cause any traffic for the application, or background data for the application to be sent via the Wi-Fi interface [fixed network]; Kosseifi para. [0050], Additional per-application data usage limitations for one or more different applications running on the endpoint device and/or associated with a plurality of endpoint devices of a customer account may similarly apply to: inbound or outbound traffic, foreground or background traffic, and/or cellular or Wi-Fi traffic).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Kosseifi to incorporate switching the connection of the gateway device to the external network via the mobile network to via a fixed network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of improving user experience (Kosseifi para. [0022]).
Per claim 15, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. As such, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Kosseifi et al. (US 2018/0183940, Pub. Date: Jun. 28, 2018), in view of Yuyang et al. (CN107734471A, Pub. Date: Feb. 23, 2018).
As per claim 4, Tabourin-Ihlar-Kosseifi discloses the gateway device according to claim 2, as set forth above, Tabourin also discloses wherein:
the data packet is a first data packet (Tabourin fig. 4A, Mobile Gateway 20 receives packet 56 from client 16); and the instructions further cause the gateway device to perform during the connection of the gateway device to the external network via the fixed network (Tabourin fig. 4A and para. [0019], The packet 56 is re-encapsulated in a system packet 62 for transmission to the fixed gateway 22 using the service connection 60 and via the network 24. The fixed gateway 22 relays the packet 56 to its destination; Tabourin fig. 2, connection of Gateway 20 to fixed part 12 via Wifi network 36 [fixed network]):
receiving a data packet to be forwarded via the gateway device (Tabourin fig. 2, application 30 running on client device 16; Tabourin para. [0019], If an application 30 [of first device] in the mobile part 14, for example, attempts to communicate 52 with a server 18 [second device] in the fixed part 12; Tabourin para. [0011], The mobile part 14 comprises at least one client as in 16 which is able to communicate with an intranet 17 comprising at least one server as in 18 and/or other network attached devices as in 19 located in the fixed part 12 and via a mobile gateway (router) 20, a fixed gateway 22 and a network 24, illustratively via a tunnel 26, such as to establish a Virtual Private Network (VPN), established between the mobile gateway 20 and the fixed gateway 22).
Tabourin does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a second data packet to be forwarded; and
forgoing intercepting the second data packet.
Yuyang teaches:
receiving a second data packet to be forwarded (Yuyang para. [0089], after stopping uploading or downloading data packets according to the user's selection, when connecting to a WIFI network that does not use a paid traffic card [fixed network] again, uploading or downloading data packets will automatically continue); and
forgoing intercepting the second data packet (Yuyang para. [0087], when it is determined that the paid traffic card is not used, no traffic usage reminder is issued; Yuyang para. [0089], after the traffic usage reminder is issued, it is determined whether to continue uploading or downloading the data packet according to the user's selection).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Yuyang to incorporate forgoing intercepting the second data packet during the connection of the gateway device to the external network via the fixed network.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of checking packet size to avoid additional traffic charges (see Yuyang para. [0023]).
Per claim 17, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. As such, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Kosseifi et al. (US 2018/0183940, Pub. Date: Jun. 28, 2018), in view of Park (US 2011/0150056, Pub. Date: Jun. 23, 2011).
As per claim 5, Tabourin-Ihlar-Kosseifi discloses the gateway device according to claim 2, as set forth above, Kosseifi also discloses wherein the instructions further cause the gateway device to perform: in response to the gateway device switching the connection of the gateway device to the external network to via the fixed network, sending packet via fixed network (Kosseifi para. [0021], if it is detected that the application has exceeded a per-application cellular network data usage limitation and an instruction is sent to the endpoint device notifying of the exceeding of the limitation, the endpoint device may then cause any traffic for the application, or background data for the application to be sent via the Wi-Fi interface).
Similar rationale in claim 2 is applied.
Tabourin does not explicitly disclose:
sending an allow signal to the first networked device.
Park teaches:
sending an allow signal to the first networked device (Park para. [00880-0089], The home gateway 10a informs node A 60 and node B 70 that the data transmission channel is changed from the channel 'A' to the channel 'B' (S730). As a result, node A 60 prepares to change and transmit the transmission frequency band, that is, a channel from 'A' to 'B' (S740).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Park to incorporate sending an allow signal to the first networked device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of informing switching channel to devices for preparing transmission (see Park para. [0088, 0089]).
Claims 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Du et al. (US 2015/0009822, Pub. Date: Jan. 8, 2015), in view of Li (US 2018/0367453, Pub. Date: Dec. 20, 2018).
As per claim 6, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 1, as set forth above, Tabourin does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume comprises:
parsing a header of the data packet to determine a network protocol used to transmit the data packet; and
determining that the network protocol is one of a predefined group of network protocols, each network protocol of the predefined group of network protocols indicating that a data packet transmitted using the network protocol has a data volume greater than the threshold data volume.
Du teaches:
parsing a header of the data packet to determine a network protocol used to transmit the data packet (Du fig. 24 and para. [0206-0207], the radio base station 211 acquires a header part of a communication packet of communication with the mobile terminal 240 performed by the wireless communication portion 331 (step S2401) … the radio base station 211 determines whether or not a protocol of the communication with the mobile terminal 240 performed by the wireless communication portion 331 is an RTSP based on the header part acquired in step S2401 (step S2402)); and
determining that the network protocol is one of a predefined group of network protocols (Du fig. 24 and para. [0207], the radio base station 211 determines whether or not a protocol of the communication with the mobile terminal 240 performed by the wireless communication portion 331 is an RTSP based on the header part acquired in step S2401 (step S2402); Du para. [0204], the trigger monitoring portion 332 sends a switching determination request to the wireless LAN switching determination portion 333 when communication using a predetermined protocol is detected. The predetermined protocol is, for example, a real time streaming protocol (RTSP)).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Du to incorporate parsing a header of the data packet to determine a network protocol used to transmit the data packet; and determining that the network protocol is one of a predefined group of network protocols.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of improving communication quality (Du para. [0059]).
Tabourin-Du does not explicitly disclose:
each network protocol of the predefined group of network protocols indicating that a data packet transmitted using the network protocol has a data volume greater than the threshold data volume.
Li teaches:
each network protocol of network protocols indicating that a data packet transmitted using the network protocol has a data volume greater than the threshold data volume (Li para. [0052], if the APP ID indicates the application being related to YouTube or File Transfer Protocol (FTP), then the traffic volume associated with the packets may be greater than or equal to the threshold (depending on the configured value of the threshold); Li para. [0040], during the packet processing in the Application layer, each packet is analyzed to identify which protocol is used for the Application layer).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Li for each network protocol of the predefined group of network protocols indicating that a data packet transmitted using the network protocol has a data volume greater than the threshold data volume.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of determining traffic volume based on protocol (see Li para. [0040, 0052]).
As per claim 7, Tabourin-Ihlar-Du-Li discloses the gateway device according to claim 6, as set forth above, Du also discloses wherein the predefined group of network protocols is an application layer protocol (Du para. [0204], The predetermined protocol is, for example, a real time streaming protocol (RTSP)).
Similar rationale in claim 6 is applied.
As per claim 8, Tabourin-Ihlar-Du-Li discloses the gateway device according to claim 6, as set forth above, Du also discloses wherein the predefined group of network protocols comprises at least one of: a protocol for file transfer, a protocol for session establishment, a peer-to-peer protocol, or an application layer streaming protocol (Du para. [0204], The predetermined protocol is, for example, a real time streaming protocol (RTSP)).
Similar rationale in claim 6 is applied.
Per claim 18, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. As such, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Lepp et al. (US 2018/0317172, Pub. Date: Nov. 1, 2018), in view of Campbell (US 2015/0163241, Pub. Date: Jun. 11, 2015).
As per claim 9, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 1, as set forth above, Tabourin does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume comprises:
parsing a header of the data packet to determine a source Media Access Control MAC address of the data packet; and
determining that the source MAC address is one of a MAC address blacklist or determining that the source MAC address is not one of a MAC address whitelist, wherein the MAC address blacklist and the MAC address whitelist are obtained by categorizing MAC addresses of networked devices based on a comparison of data volumes of data packets transmitted by the networked devices with the threshold data volume.
Lepp teaches:
parsing a header of the data packet to determine a source Media Access Control MAC address of the data packet (Lepp para. [0059], the STA can read the source address in the trigger frame. As described in FIGS. 3-6 and 8, the source address can be a source MAC address in the header); and
determining that the source MAC address is one of a MAC address blacklist (Lepp para. [0059], The STA can compare the source address with the blacklist, and if there is a match) or determining that the source MAC address is not one of a MAC address whitelist (Lepp para. [0059], The STA can also compare the source address with the whitelist … if the source address matches neither the blacklist nor the whitelist), wherein the MAC address blacklist and the MAC address whitelist are obtained by categorizing MAC addresses of networked devices (Lepp para. [0080], the STA compares the receiver identity which is a group receiver identity with a whitelist or a blacklist. For example, the STA can maintain a whitelist and/or a blacklist for the groupcast addresses, where the whitelist can include a list of groupcast addresses that the STA intends to wake up for, and the blacklist can include a list of groupcast addresses that the STA does not want to wake up for. [The citations indicate that MAC addresses are categorized into whitelist and blacklist]).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Lepp for parsing a header of the data packet to determine a source MAC address of the data packet; and determining that the source MAC address is one of a MAC address blacklist or is not one of a MAC address whitelist, and the MAC address blacklist and the MAC address whitelist are obtained by categorizing MAC addresses.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of identifying whether or not a device is belonging to a certain group.
Yuyang-Lepp does not explicitly disclose:
categorizing MAC addresses of networked devices based on a comparison of data volumes of data packets transmitted by the networked devices with the threshold data volume.
Campbell teaches:
categorizing addresses of networked devices (Campbell fig. 1, computing devices 90 and para. [0020], identifying information (e.g., domain, IP address, IP block) about the originating computing device being communicated to one or more other network managers, in the form of an alert, and the other network manager(s) may elect to block the originating computing device themselves) based on a comparison of data volumes of data packets transmitted by the networked devices with the threshold data volume (Campbell para. [0014], The detection of overly segmented HTTP requests may be done by analyzing the packet size and comparing the packet's size to a predetermined threshold (e.g., 500 bytes, 1000 bytes) … Based on these identifications, communications from computers sending such HTTP communications may be blocked and/or black listed; Campbell para. [0019], the packet size threshold is significantly less than a Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) for a communication path (e.g., if the MTU is 1500, the threshold may be 500, 750, and/or 1000).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Campbell for categorizing MAC addresses of networked devices based on a comparison of data volumes of data packets transmitted by the networked devices with the threshold data volume.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of identifying and grouping devices that sending large packet size.
Per claim 19, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 9. As such, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabourin et al. (US 2018/0220477, Pub. Date: Aug. 2, 2018), in view of Ihlar et al. (WO 2022238456, International Filing Date: May 11, 2022), in view of Malysh et al. (US 2020/0322242, Pub. Date: Oct. 8, 2020).
As per claim 10, Tabourin-Ihlar discloses the gateway device according to claim 1, as set forth above, Tabourin-Ihlar also discloses that wherein the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 11-13, at step 220, it is determined at the first node whether the size of a packet received from a network host (e.g. an application client for uplink packets, an application server for downlink packets) exceeds the first MTU size threshold; Ihlar pg. 4 line 29, MTU = X bytes) and the intercepting the data packet are performed (Per specification of examined application, paragraph 60 shows that intercepting the data packet includes discarding the data packet]. Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping [intercepting] the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet) in response to that the gateway device (Tabourin fig. 2, Mobile Gateway 20) is configured to provide an application layer interception function (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping [intercepting] the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet).
Similar rationale in claim 1 is applied.
Tabourin-Ihlar teaches determining and intercepting limitations, but does not explicitly disclose determining and intercepting are performed in response to determining that the gateway device is configured to enable a function.
Malysh teaches:
packet monitoring functions are performed in response to determining that a device is configured to enable functions (Malysh para. [0072], the executed instructions further cause the computer server to display on the user interface associated with the computer server an option to enable and disable the packet monitoring application, wherein the components report the status of packets responsive to the user interface receiving input enabling the packet monitoring application, and wherein a default setting of the packet monitoring application is disabled).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin in view of Malysh to incorporate option to enable an application layer interception function in order to the gateway device performs determining the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume and intercepting the data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing user with options to enable and disable a function.
As per claim 12, Tabourin-Ihlar-Malysh discloses the gateway device according to claim 10, as set forth above, Tabourin-Ihlar teaches the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume (Ihlar pg. 6 lines 11-13, at step 220, it is determined at the first node whether the size of a packet received from a network host (e.g. an application client for uplink packets, an application server for downlink packets) exceeds the first MTU size threshold; Ihlar pg. 4 line 29, MTU = X bytes) and the intercepting the data packet (Per specification of examined application, paragraph 60 shows that intercepting the data packet includes discarding the data packet]. Ihlar pg. 6 lines 19-25, If it is determined at step 220 that the size of the packet exceeds the first MTU size threshold, then at step 230, an action corresponding to the at least one Packet Detection Rule (PDR) associated with the first MTU size threshold is performed at the first node. The action corresponding to the at least one PDR associated with the first MTU size threshold may comprise at least one of: dropping [intercepting] the packet, generating a Packet Too Big (PTB) message, and sending the PTB message to a source of the packet).
Similar rationale in claim 1 is applied.
Tabourin-Ihlar teaches the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume and the intercepting the data packet by a gateway device (Tabourin fig. 2 and Ihlar pg. 6 lines 11-13 & lines 19-25), but Tabourin-Ihlar does not explicitly disclose forgoing execution of determining and intercepting in response to disabling the application layer interception function (corresponding to in response to determining that the gateway device is configured to disable the application layer interception function, forgoing execution of the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume and the intercepting the data packet).
Malysh teaches:
in response to determining that a device is configured to disable a function (Malysh para. [0003], The packet monitoring application can be selectively enabled or disabled by a computer server administrator. When disabled, the components within the virtualized network stack do not report packet propagations or drops to the packet monitoring application), forgoing execution of function (Malysh para. [0003], The packet monitoring application can be selectively enabled or disabled by a computer server administrator. When disabled, the components within the virtualized network stack do not report packet propagations or drops to the packet monitoring application).
It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Tabourin-Ihlar in view of Malysh for in response to determining that the gateway device is configured to disable the application layer interception function, forgoing execution of the determining that the data packet has a data volume greater than a threshold data volume and the intercepting the data packet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived because it offers the advantage of providing user with options to enable and disable a function.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. (US 20190312820) Path Maximum Transmission Unit (PMTU) Discovery In Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Environments;
Baba et al. (US 20160182303) System And Method For Determining Routing Information;
Allu et al. (US 20140198793) Traffic Forwarding In A Point Multi-Point Link Aggregation Using A Link Selector Data Table.
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 VINH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4487. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. 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.
/VINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453