DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application filed 3 November 2023, and a continuation in part of 18/383,142 filed 24 October 2023, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 May 2024, 30 January 2025, and 4 December 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/383,142 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown in the following table, the claim limitations and claim elements match up with the reference application even though the exact verbiage is not used.
Instant Application
Reference Application 18/383,142
A computer-implemented method comprising:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between an SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway;
establishing, by a terminal, a first communication tunnel between an SD-WAN router and a first SD-WAN gateway via a first wireless gateway;
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels and carrying traffic from one or more client devices over the one or more first communication tunnels, detecting, by the terminal, that the modem has changed its association to a second wireless gateway that is different from the first wireless gateway;
after establishing the first communication tunnel and using a modem of the terminal to communicate through the first communication tunnel via the first wireless gateway, determining, by the terminal, that the modem has switched to communicate with a second wireless gateway that is different from the first wireless gateway;
in response to detecting that the modem has changed its association to the second wireless gateway, selecting, by the terminal, a second SD-WAN gateway from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on a relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway;
in response to determining the modem is communicating with the second wireless gateway, selecting, by the terminal, a second SD-WAN gateway from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on a relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway;
determining, by the terminal, whether one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied
wherein the one or more criteria comprise at least one of (i) the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway being maintained for at least a minimum amount of time, (ii) a limit for a maximum number of concurrently active SD-WAN registrations is not exceeded, or (iii) a minimum amount of time has elapsed since the SD-WAN router most recently established a communication tunnel with a SD-WAN gateway other than the second SD-WAN gateway.
determining, by the terminal, whether one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, wherein the one or more criteria comprise at least one of (i) the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway is maintained for at least a minimum amount of time, or (ii) the SD-WAN router has been registered to the second SD-WAN gateway for at least a minimum amount of time; and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, establishing, by the terminal, one or more second communication tunnels between the SD-WAN router and the second SD-WAN gateway while maintaining the one or more first communication tunnels that the SD-WAN router established with the first SD-WAN gateway.
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, establishing, by the terminal, a second communication tunnel between the SD-WAN router and the second SD-WAN gateway while maintaining the first communication tunnel, such that the terminal is configured to provide data through the second communication tunnel via the second wireless gateway and concurrently provide data through the first communication tunnel via the first wireless gateway.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. While claim 1 of the instant application is illustrated above, claims 12 and 20 of the instant application are found to be parallel to claim 1 and the double patenting rejection applies mutatis mutandis.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3419334 B1, hereafter referred Shimojou, in view of Varsavsky Waisman-Diamond et al. (US 8,910,300 B2), hereafter referred Varsavsky. Shimojou and Varsavsky were cited by applicant’s IDS filed 4 December 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Shimojou teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels and carrying traffic from one or more client devices over the one or more first communication tunnels, detecting, by the terminal, that the modem has changed its association to a second wireless gateway that is different from the first wireless gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0047]-[0049]; the source eNB 20 is set to eNB 20C and the target eNB is set to eNB 20D, where the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the source eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1A and the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the target eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1B, the UE makes a handover request on target eNB to the source eNB);
in response to detecting that the modem has changed its association to the second wireless gateway, selecting, by the terminal, a second SD-WAN gateway from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on a relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0053]; the SGW-C sends the TEID of the target SGW-U to the target eNB for it to be connected to the target SGW-U);
determining, by the terminal, whether one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0054]; the connection changer determines whether or not it is necessary to change the SGW-C and the SGW-U according to the change of the eNB); and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, establishing, by the terminal, one or more second communication tunnels between the SD-WAN router and the second SD-WAN gateway while maintaining the one or more first communication tunnels that the SD-WAN router established with the first SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 6, [0053]-[0054]; establish a tunnel between the target eNB and the target SGW-U (step S11) then this tunnel is edited and a tunnel between the target SGW-U and the PGW-U is established and edited, and the tunnel between the source eNB and the source SGW-U is utilized in data forwarding).
Shimojou does not expressly teach establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway.
However, Varsasky teaches establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 16-48; user device sends the received one time password to configured router via the HTTP protocol, where the configured router starts an L2TP layer 2 tunnel with the LNS server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Varsavsky in order to protect the authentication credentials when exchanged through the Internet (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 32-48).
Regarding claim 12, Shimojou teaches a terminal comprising:
one or more processors and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the terminal (Shimojou, Fig. 3, [0031]-[0034]; a computer system which includes one or a plurality of CPUs, RAM and ROM, where the functions can be implemented in software instructions stored in memory and executed by the processor) to perform operations comprising:
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels and carrying traffic from one or more client devices over the one or more first communication tunnels, detecting, by the terminal, that the modem has changed its association to a second wireless gateway that is different from the first wireless gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0047]-[0049]; the source eNB 20 is set to eNB 20C and the target eNB is set to eNB 20D, where the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the source eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1A and the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the target eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1B, the UE makes a handover request on target eNB to the source eNB);
in response to detecting that the modem has changed its association to the second wireless gateway, selecting, by the terminal, a second SD-WAN gateway from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on a relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0053]; the SGW-C sends the TEID of the target SGW-U to the target eNB for it to be connected to the target SGW-U);
determining, by the terminal, whether one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0054]; the connection changer determines whether or not it is necessary to change the SGW-C and the SGW-U according to the change of the eNB); and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, establishing, by the terminal, one or more second communication tunnels between the SD-WAN router and the second SD-WAN gateway while maintaining the one or more first communication tunnels that the SD-WAN router established with the first SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 6, [0053]-[0054]; establish a tunnel between the target eNB and the target SGW-U (step S11) then this tunnel is edited and a tunnel between the target SGW-U and the PGW-U is established and edited, and the tunnel between the source eNB and the source SGW-U is utilized in data forwarding).
Shimojou does not expressly teach establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway.
However, Varsavsky teaches establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 16-48; user device sends the received one time password to configured router via the HTTP protocol, where the configured router starts an L2TP layer 2 tunnel with the LNS server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Varsavsky in order to protect the authentication credentials when exchanged through the Internet (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 32-48).
Regarding claim 20, Shimojou teaches one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Shimojou, Fig. 3, [0031]-[0034]; a computer system which includes one or a plurality of CPUs, RAM and ROM, where the functions can be implemented in software instructions stored in memory and executed by the processor) comprising:
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels and carrying traffic from one or more client devices over the one or more first communication tunnels, detecting, by the terminal, that the modem has changed its association to a second wireless gateway that is different from the first wireless gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0047]-[0049]; the source eNB 20 is set to eNB 20C and the target eNB is set to eNB 20D, where the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the source eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1A and the identifier of SGW-U corresponding to the target eNB due to handover is SGW-U 1B, the UE makes a handover request on target eNB to the source eNB);
in response to detecting that the modem has changed its association to the second wireless gateway, selecting, by the terminal, a second SD-WAN gateway from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on a relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0053]; the SGW-C sends the TEID of the target SGW-U to the target eNB for it to be connected to the target SGW-U);
determining, by the terminal, whether one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied (Shimojou, Fig. 5, [0051]-[0054]; the connection changer determines whether or not it is necessary to change the SGW-C and the SGW-U according to the change of the eNB); and
in response to determining that the one or more criteria for establishing an additional communication tunnel have been satisfied, establishing, by the terminal, one or more second communication tunnels between the SD-WAN router and the second SD-WAN gateway while maintaining the one or more first communication tunnels that the SD-WAN router established with the first SD-WAN gateway (Shimojou, Fig. 6, [0053]-[0054]; establish a tunnel between the target eNB and the target SGW-U (step S11) then this tunnel is edited and a tunnel between the target SGW-U and the PGW-U is established and edited, and the tunnel between the source eNB and the source SGW-U is utilized in data forwarding).
Shimojou does not expressly teach establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway.
However, Varsavsky teaches establishing, by a terminal, one or more first communication tunnels between a SD-WAN router of the terminal and a first SD-WAN gateway via one or more modems, including a modem that is associated to a first wireless gateway (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 16-48; user device sends the received one time password to configured router via the HTTP protocol, where the configured router starts an L2TP layer 2 tunnel with the LNS server).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou to include the above recited limitations as taught by Varsavsky in order to protect the authentication credentials when exchanged through the Internet (Varsavsky, Column 6, lines 32-48).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Condoluci et al. (US 2021/0153078 A1), hereafter referred Condoluci. Condoluci was cited by applicant’s IDS filed 4 December 2025.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein the one or more criteria comprise at least one of (i) the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway being maintained for at least a minimum amount of time, (ii) a limit for a maximum number of concurrently active SD-WAN registrations is not exceeded, or (iii) a minimum amount of time has elapsed since the SD-WAN router most recently established a communication tunnel with a SD-WAN gateway other than the second SD-WAN gateway.
However, Condoluci teaches wherein the one or more criteria comprise at least one of (i) the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway being maintained for at least a minimum amount of time, (ii) a limit for a maximum number of concurrently active SD-WAN registrations is not exceeded, or (iii) a minimum amount of time has elapsed since the SD-WAN router most recently established a communication tunnel with a SD-WAN gateway other than the second SD-WAN gateway (Condoluci, [0088]; when deciding whether to trigger a bearer adjustment, the PCF/SMF/RAN can compute whether the adjustment is expected to be kept for a time interval at least equal to the minimum bearer duration).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Condoluci in order to allow the network to compute how long the changes in the bearer configuration are expected to be kept (Condoluci, [0088]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Altman (US 2020/0204484 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein the one or more modems comprise multiple modems that associate to different wireless gateways; and wherein the method comprises monitoring each of the multiple modems to detect when any of the multiple modems changes its association to a different wireless gateway.
However, Altman teaches wherein the one or more modems comprise multiple modems that associate to different wireless gateways; and wherein the method comprises monitoring each of the multiple modems to detect when any of the multiple modems changes its association to a different wireless gateway (Altman, [0072]-[0075]; when measured or monitored conditions change at any level between multiple connections including modems and gateways may change and the decision of whether to change as well as resource allocation may be done by a device in the network).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Altman in order to respond to such changes in conditions or performance (Altman, [0074]).
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sherman (US 9,668,195 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein the terminal is configured to send and receive data through the one or more second communication tunnels via the second SD-WAN gateway and concurrently send and receive data through the one or more first communication tunnels via the first SD-WAN gateway.
However, Sherman teaches wherein the terminal is configured to send and receive data through the one or more second communication tunnels via the second SD-WAN gateway and concurrently send and receive data through the one or more first communication tunnels via the first SD-WAN gateway (Sherman, Fig. 5-6, Column 30, line 48-Column 32, line 32; the base station encapsulates the data in a GTP tunnel to the mobile station when it registers to the mobile relay network APN where the destination address is of the gateway P/S-GW that was assigned to mobile station. The gateway redirects the tunneled packet to another gateway in a second GTP tunnel and forwards the IP traffic to the router again).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Sherman in order to enable multi-hop tunneling capability without impacting the mobile stations (Sherman, Column 33, lines 4-16).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach comprising:
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels with the first SD-WAN gateway and before establishing the one or more second communication tunnels, using the SD-WAN router to (i) transmit packets of a client connection over one of the first communication tunnels and (ii) receive packets of a client connection over one of the first communication tunnels; and after establishing the one or more second communication tunnels: maintaining communication over the first set of communication tunnels for existing client connections that started before the one or more second communication tunnels were established; and routing packets over the second communication tunnels for client connections that started after the one or more second communication tunnels were established.
However, Sherman teaches comprising:
after establishing the one or more first communication tunnels with the first SD-WAN gateway and before establishing the one or more second communication tunnels, using the SD-WAN router to (i) transmit packets of a client connection over one of the first communication tunnels and (ii) receive packets of a client connection over one of the first communication tunnels; and after establishing the one or more second communication tunnels: maintaining communication over the first set of communication tunnels for existing client connections that started before the one or more second communication tunnels were established; and routing packets over the second communication tunnels for client connections that started after the one or more second communication tunnels were established (Sherman, Fig. 5-6, Column 30, line 48-Column 32, line 32; the base station encapsulates the data in a GTP tunnel to the mobile station when it registers to the mobile relay network APN where the destination address is of the gateway P/S-GW that was assigned to mobile station. The gateway redirects the tunneled packet to another gateway in a second GTP tunnel and forwards the IP traffic to the router again).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Sherman in order to enable multi-hop tunneling capability without impacting the mobile stations (Sherman, Column 33, lines 4-16).
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Legg et al. (US 2021/0185493 A1), hereafter referred Legg.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein detecting that the modem has changed its association comprises obtaining information from the modem using a signaling method between the terminal and the modem, and evaluating the information to detect when the modem's associated wireless gateway has changed.
However, Legg teaches wherein detecting that the modem has changed its association comprises obtaining information from the modem using a signaling method between the terminal and the modem, and evaluating the information to detect when the modem's associated wireless gateway has changed (Legg, Fig. 1-2, [0047]-[0062]; the mobility anchor may provide a common node for all connections and communication paths from the correspondent node to the end node and perform mobility management including keeping track of which access points the wireless modems are currently connected to and updating the routing path accordingly when conditions change. When the train moves and the individual modems dynamically switch/handover to different access points, the mobility anchor will register the resulting changes and update the communication path for the individual connection).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Legg in order to support communication with fast moving vehicles (Legg, [0008]).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein detecting that the modem has changed its association comprises detecting when one or more connections carried by the modem have changed to a different anchor point in a network of a wireless service provider.
However, Legg teaches wherein detecting that the modem has changed its association comprises detecting when one or more connections carried by the modem have changed to a different anchor point in a network of a wireless service provider (Legg, Fig. 1-2, [0047]-[0062]; the mobility anchor returns a set of IP addresses to the mobile access gateway and the mobile access gateway and AP establish a bi-directional tunnel to carry traffic to and from the modem, where the modem chooses an IP address to use for the source IP address which may change with the different APs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Legg in order to support communication with fast moving vehicles (Legg, [0008]).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the terminal of claim 12 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach comprising detecting a change in anchor point for one or more connections based on a change of source IP address in the one or more connections carried by the modem in the direction of transmission from the terminal to a SD-WAN gateway.
However, Legg teaches comprising detecting a change in anchor point for one or more connections based on a change of source IP address in the one or more connections carried by the modem in the direction of transmission from the terminal to a SD-WAN gateway (Legg, Fig. 1-2, [0047]-[0062]; the mobility anchor returns a set of IP addresses to the mobile access gateway and the mobile access gateway and AP establish a bi-directional tunnel to carry traffic to and from the modem, where the modem chooses an IP address to use for the source IP address which may change with the different APs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Legg in order to support communication with fast moving vehicles (Legg, [0008]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Swain (US 2023/0216894 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein selecting the second SD-WAN gateway from the set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway comprises: selecting, from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateway locations, a second SD-WAN gateway location that has a shortest geographical distance to the location of the second wireless gateway.
However, Swain teaches wherein selecting the second SD-WAN gateway from the set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway comprises: selecting, from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateway locations, a second SD-WAN gateway location that has a shortest geographical distance to the location of the second wireless gateway (Swain, [0028]; the client may establish a connection with the nearest (e.g. geographically closest) gateway service point of presence, where the gateway service point of presences may establish a tunnel from the client for communications).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Swain in order to establish a connection according to routing logic (Swain, [0030]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimojou in view of Varsavsky as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Mo (US 2021/0105869 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky does not expressly teach wherein selecting the second SD-WAN gateway from the set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway comprises: selecting, from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateway locations, a second SD-WAN gateway location that has a lowest latency for communication with the terminal.
However, Mo teaches wherein selecting the second SD-WAN gateway from the set of multiple SD-WAN gateways based on the relationship between the second wireless gateway and the second SD-WAN gateway comprises: selecting, from a set of multiple SD-WAN gateway locations, a second SD-WAN gateway location that has a lowest latency for communication with the terminal (Mo, [0176]-[0180] and [0289]; the router may request the WiFi DM to ping a connected device to determine the local latency performance, which may be used to determine operation of the gateway including connectivity. The latency performance includes parameters to determine the best to connection with, such as overall available bandwidth, lowest latency or lowest BER).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mo in order to provide the requested service request that can be customized to different parameters (Mo, [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Shimojou in view of Varsavsky further in view of Mo teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 10 above. Shimojou in view of Varsavsky further does not expressly teach comprising measuring latency from the terminal to the respective multiple SD-WAN gateway locations by exchanging latency probing messages between the terminal and a server at each of the respective SD-WAN gateway locations.
However, Mo teaches comprising measuring latency from the terminal to the respective multiple SD-WAN gateway locations by exchanging latency probing messages between the terminal and a server at each of the respective SD-WAN gateway locations (Mo, [0176]-[0180] and [0289]; the router may request the WiFi DM to ping a connected device to determine the local latency performance, which may be used to determine operation of the gateway including connectivity. The latency performance includes parameters to determine the best to connection with, such as overall available bandwidth, lowest latency or lowest BER).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to create the invention of Shimojou in view of Varsavsky to include the above recited limitations as taught by Mo in order to provide the requested service request that can be customized to different parameters (Mo, [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODRICK MAK whose telephone number is (571)270-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 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, Noel Beharry can be reached at 571-270-5630. 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.
/R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416