DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 15 May 2026 in which claims 1-40 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21-29, 31-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bareket et al. (PG Pub US 2018/0213574 A1) in view of Scharf et al. (PG Pub US 2015/0081907 A1) and Durbin (PG Pub US 2015/0365381 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 21, 31, Bareket discloses a method, a computing device, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a system.
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to (fig. 2): determine, based on the computing device being connected to the wireless network, whether the wireless network connection is secure (“determine whether the wireless network 210 is secure or unsecure” [0061]);
determine a quality of the wireless network connection (“determine capability of the unsecure wireless network 210 to accommodate a VPN link with the VPN server 214. The accessibility evaluated by the probe agent 222 verifies may include, for example, checking a connection to the internet 212, verifying available network port(s), authenticating a valid account for a VPN service provided by the VPN server 214 and/or the like. Therefore, in addition to verifying a valid connection to the internet 212, the probe agent 222 must verify the network port(s) required for establishing the VPN link is available and free. For example, the probe agent 222 verifies that the required network port(s) are properly defined and/or available at the network control module(s) 220 and/or the OS. The probe agent 222 may also probe to verify the required network port(s) are not blocked by a firewall and/or the like. Naturally, in order to establish the VPN link with the VPN server 214, the mobile device 201 should be associated with a valid account for the VPN service provided by the VPN server 214” [0062]); and
establish, via the wireless network connection, based on a determination that the wireless network connection is not secure and based on a determination that the quality of the wireless network connection satisfies a threshold, a virtual private network (VPN) connection (“in case the probe agent 222 determines that the wireless network 210 is unsecure, the probe agent 222 may further probe the unsecure wireless network 210 to determine accessibility to the VPN server 214 over the unsecure wireless network 210, i.e. determine capability of the unsecure wireless network 210 to accommodate a VPN link with the VPN server 214. The accessibility evaluated by the probe agent 222 verifies may include, for example, checking a connection to the internet 212, verifying available network port(s), authenticating a valid account for a VPN service provided by the VPN server 214 and/or the like” [0062], “the probe agent 222 automatically initializes (invokes, launches) the VPN client 224 according to the determined accessibility, i.e. the probe agent 222 invokes the VPN client 224 in case the accessibility is determined valid (feasible). The VPN client 224 then establishes the VPN link with the VPN server 214 over the unsecure wireless network 210” [0066]).
However, Bareket does not explicitly disclose a quality of the wireless network connection.
Nevertheless, Scharf discloses “Examples of cost types may include network delay, network bandwidth or packet loss rates. The calculation may include the automated selection of the estimated best attachment point for each candidate VPN endpoint to the current VPN topology and the calculation of costs based on this attachment point “ [0029], “automatically select a candidate VPN endpoint that meets the given requirements” [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a quality of the wireless network connection because “Such a system may automatically determine the costs for the attachment of each candidate data center considering the current network status, existing VPN sites, candidate data center locations, application provider policies, etc. for use in determining which candidate data center to select” [0028].
In addition, Bareket, Scharf discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Bareket, Scharf does not explicitly disclose receive a selection of a wireless network from a plurality of available wireless networks.
Nevertheless, Durbin discloses “a list of available trusted and/or unsecured wireless access networks and identifiers is presented to the user, such as a wireless access 1-trusted 723, a wireless access 2-trusted 725, a wireless access 3-trusted 727, a wireless access 4-unsecured 729, and a wireless access 5-trusted 731” [0051], “various trusted wireless access identifiers that are available for use to connect the mobile device 103 to a public wireless network are received e.g. by the application” [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a selection of a wireless network from a plurality of available wireless networks because “the application control module 207 enables the user of the mobile device 103 to manually select a trusted wireless network from a list of available wireless network to initiate a VPN connection over the trusted wireless network” [0031].
Regarding claims 2, 12, 22, 32, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Scharf discloses the VPN connection comprises a partial VPN based on a determination that the quality of the wireless network connection does not satisfy a second threshold (“Partial match: some of the VMs in the current VPN meet the specified requirements but not all. For example, if a maximum delay has been defined, some, but not all, VMs in the current VPN are able to communicate with a VM in the candidate VPN endpoints with a delay less than the maximum delay” [0033]).
Regarding claims 3, 13, 23, 33, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses determine whether the wireless network connection is secure by determining whether the wireless network connection uses at least one of: Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), WPA2, or WPA3 (“identify one or more characteristics of the wireless network 210, for example, an encryption type employed by the wireless network 210 (e.g. none, open, WEP, WPA, etc.)” [0061]).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 24, 34, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Scharf discloses the determination that the quality of the wireless network connection satisfies the threshold is based on at least one of: a bit failure rate; a packet loss rate; a transmission rate; or a signal strength (“Examples of cost types may include network delay, network bandwidth or packet loss rates. The calculation may include the automated selection of the estimated best attachment point for each candidate VPN endpoint to the current VPN topology and the calculation of costs based on this attachment point “ [0029]).
Regarding claims 5, 15, 25, 35, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses determine whether an Internet is accessible via the wireless network connection, wherein the establishing the VPN connection is further based on a determination that the Internet may be accessed via the wireless network connection (“The accessibility to the VPN server may require as a minimum a valid internet connection” [0036], “checking a connection to the internet 212” [0062]).
Regarding claims 6, 16, 26, 36, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses cause, based on the establishing the VPN connection, an indication of the VPN connection to be displayed (“a visual indication, an audible indication and/or the like. The probe agent 222 may provide the indication(s), for example, to present the status of the VPN link, for example, initializing, connecting, connected, disconnected, re-connecting, failed and/or the like” [0069]).
Regarding claims 7, 17, 27, 37, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses tear down, based on a determination that the wireless network connection has been interrupted, the VPN connection (“Once the mobile device disconnects from the unsecure wireless network, the VPN client may be terminated automatically” [0041]).
Regarding claims 8, 18, 28, 38, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses determine that the wireless network connection has been interrupted based on a determination that a Wi-Fi capability of the computing device has been disabled (“Disconnection from the unsecure wireless network 210 may result from, for example, the network control module(s) 220 establish a connection with a secure network, the mobile device 201 is out of range of the unsecure wireless network 210, the network interface(s) 202 is disabled and/or the like” [0072]).
Regarding claims 9, 19, 29, 39, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Bareket discloses determine that the quality of the wireless network connection satisfies the threshold by determining that the wireless network connection can support the VPN connection (“determine capability of the unsecure wireless network 210 to accommodate a VPN link with the VPN server 214. The accessibility evaluated by the probe agent 222 verifies may include, for example, checking a connection to the internet 212, verifying available network port(s), authenticating a valid account for a VPN service provided by the VPN server 214 and/or the like. Therefore, in addition to verifying a valid connection to the internet 212, the probe agent 222 must verify the network port(s) required for establishing the VPN link is available and free. For example, the probe agent 222 verifies that the required network port(s) are properly defined and/or available at the network control module(s) 220 and/or the OS. The probe agent 222 may also probe to verify the required network port(s) are not blocked by a firewall and/or the like. Naturally, in order to establish the VPN link with the VPN server 214, the mobile device 201 should be associated with a valid account for the VPN service provided by the VPN server 214” [0062]).
Claims 10, 20, 30, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bareket, Scharf, Durbin in view of Moses et al. (US Patent No. 10,360,071 B1).
Regarding claims 10, 20, 30, 40, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin discloses everything claimed as applied above. However, Bareket, Scharf, Durbin does not explicitly disclose establish the VPN connection further based on an indication that a user of the computing device has agreed to terms and conditions for using the wireless network connection.
Nevertheless, Moses discloses “A customer willing to purchase the network-accessible computing resource may select the listing, agree to the terms and conditions and purchase the network-accessible computing resource … After completing the transaction to purchase the network-accessible computing resource, as in block 708, a network connection may be established allowing the customer to access the network-accessible computing resource” (col 16 lines 25-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish the VPN connection further based on an indication that a user of the computing device has agreed to terms and conditions for using the wireless network connection because “The network connection may enable a customer to access the network-accessible computing resource by way of a virtual private gateway established on behalf of the customer. In another example, a customer may be connected to a network-accessible computing resource via a dedicated hardware VPN” (col 16 lines 34-39).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights