DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received April 29, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Response, the previous (1) objection to the drawings under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q); (2) invoking of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); and (3) rejections of claims 8–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1–7 and 15–27 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Claims 26 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) for the following informalities:
(1) claim 26, line 1 should be “wherein the one or more.”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 26, line 2, “the undecrypted data” lacks clear antecedent basis. Moreover, the Examiner is unclear whether the limitation refers to the “unencrypted data” introduced in claim 24, lines 15–16.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Young
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young et al. (US 2014/0101324 A1; filed Oct. 10, 2012).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts “[t]he Office action admits that none of the cited art teaches or suggests receiving data from a secure network via a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel. See present Office action, p. 18.” Response 14. Applicant argues
[a]ccordingly, none of the cited references teaches or suggests a transceiver to communicate with a secure network via a wireless communication protocol to cause a VPN server to permit an end device to transmit data to a secure network via a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel and to receive data from the secure network via the first VPN tunnel and the second VPN tunnel.
Id.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. At the outset, the Examiner finds the Office action mailed January 29, 2026 does not admit none of the cited art teaches or suggests receiving data from a secure network via a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel. The Examiner finds the Office action mailed January 29, 2026 admits one of the cited art teaches or suggests claim 17 which recites
a method comprising:
generating first encrypted data via a first virtual private network (VPN) tunnel associated with an end device;
generating second encrypted data via a second VPN tunnel associated with a mobile hardware VPN device, the second encrypted data including the first encrypted data;
transmitting the second encrypted data to a transceiver;
transmitting, by the transceiver and via a wireless communication protocol, the second encrypted data to a secure network for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data; and
receiving, at the end device, via the first VPN tunnel and the second VPN tunnel, data from the secure network.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds Young teaches a transceiver (fig. 1, item 110) to communicate with a secure network via a wireless communication protocol to cause a VPN server to permit an end device to transmit data to a secure network via a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel and to receive data from the secure network via the first VPN tunnel and the second VPN tunnel. The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
The Examiner’s finding of intended use of the transceiver was indicated on page 7 of the previous Office action mailed January 29, 2026. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence and/or a persuasive line of technical reasoning why the function of the transceiver is not intended, or if intended, why Young’s transceiver is not capable of performing the intended function. Therefore, the Examiner is unpersuaded of error.
The Rejection
Regarding claim 1, while Young teaches a system (fig. 1, item 100) comprising:
a hardware virtual private network (VPN) device (fig. 1, item 118), the hardware VPN device communicatively coupled to an end device (fig. 1, item 130); and
a transceiver (fig. 1, item 110) communicatively coupled to the hardware VPN device;
a first connection (fig. 1 illustrates bidirectional arrows between item 118 and 110) established between the hardware VPN device and the transceiver; and
a second connection (fig. 1 illustrates bidirectional arrows between item 130 and 118) established between the end device and the hardware VPN device, the transceiver to communicate with a secure network via a wireless communication protocol to cause a VPN server to permit the end device to exchange transmit data to with the secure network via the first connection and the second connection and to receive data from the secure network via the first connection and the second connection (intended use in italics)1,
Young does not teach (A) the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device; and (B) the first connection and the second connection being, respectively, a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel.
(A)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for Young’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732 (CCPA 1952)).
(B)
Young teaches a VPN tunnel (fig. 6, item 606).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for Young’s first connection and second connection to be, respectively, a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel as taught by Young for the end device mobile hardware VPN device and transceiver can “send and receive information securely to/from each other.” Young ¶ 38.
Regarding claim 5, Young teaches wherein the wireless communication protocol is a 5G communication protocol.2
Regarding claim 7, Young teaches wherein the second VPN tunnel is to transmit encrypted data from the end device, the encrypted data including Internet Protocol-based data (intended use in italics)3.
Regarding claim 21, Young teaches wherein the second VPN tunnel is to transmit twice- encrypted data from the secure network and the first VPN tunnel is to transmit once-encrypted data from the secure network, the twice-encrypted data including the once-encrypted data (intended use in italics)4.
Young and Liu ‘854
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu (US 2006/0036854 A1; filed Aug. 9, 2004)(Liu ‘854).
Regarding claim 2, while Young teaches wherein the mobile hardware VPN device (fig. 1, item 118) is communicatively coupled to the end device (fig. 1, item 130) via a connection (fig. 1, item 104),
Young does not teach the connection being a cable received in a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device.
Liu ‘854 teaches a cable (fig. 6, item 56) received in a network port (fig. 6, item 102; “the network I/O port 102 is connected to the network cable 56” at ¶ 16) of a mobile hardware VPN device (fig. 6, item 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s connection to be a cable received in a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device as taught by Liu ‘854 “to provide a portable VPN device used to provide VPN service without any external power supply.” Liu ‘854 ¶ 6.
Regarding claim 4, Young does not teach wherein the communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver is a wired communicative coupling.
Liu ‘854 teaches a wired communicative coupling (“the VPN device according to the present invention can not only communicate with the Internet 80 through wired transfer” at ¶ 21; “the network I/O port 102 is connected to the network cable 56”; fig. 6, items 10 and 100 are also wired communicative coupled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver to be a wired communicative coupling as taught by Liu ‘854 “to provide a portable VPN device used to provide VPN service without any external power supply.” Liu ‘854 ¶ 6.
Young, Liu ‘854, and Braun
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu ‘854, and in further view of Braun et al. (US 2016/0380664 A1; filed Aug. 18, 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Young does not teach wherein a Wi-Fi antenna of the mobile hardware VPN device is disabled.
Braun teaches disabling a Wi-Fi antenna of a device (“the communication device 102 might determine to disable the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” at ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Young’s mobile hardware VPN device to disable its Wi-Fi antenna as taught by Braun to prevent “a possible degradation in performance of the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” Braun ¶ 64.
Young, Liu ‘854, and Xu
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Young in view of Liu ‘854, and in further view of Xu (US 2016/0373651 A1; filed May 24, 2016).
Regarding claim 6, Young does not teach further including a portable battery coupled to one or more of the mobile hardware VPN device or the transceiver.
Xu teaches a portable battery coupled to a device (“he portable battery apparatus 200 is coupled to a mobile device (e.g., the sports camera 100)” at ¶ 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of Young’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver to be coupled to portable battery as taught by Xu to “provide supplemental battery power without interrupting normal operations of” Young’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver. Xu ¶ 2.
CsfC
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 15–21, and 24–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Commercial Solutions for Classified (CsfC) Mobile Access Capability Package v2.5, National Security Agency Central Security Service, pp. 1–112 (August 2021)(“CsfC”).
Regarding claim 1, while CSfC teaches a system (fig. 1, p. 4) comprising:
a hardware virtual private network (VPN) device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4), the mobile hardware VPN device communicatively coupled to an end device (“End User Device” at fig. 1, p. 4); and
a transceiver (“Outer Firewall” at fig. 1, p. 4) communicatively coupled to the hardware VPN device;
a first connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between the “Outer VPN Gateway” and the “Outer Firewall”) established between the hardware VPN device and the transceiver; and
a second connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between the “End User Device” and the “Outer VPN Gateway”) established between the end device and the hardware VPN device,
the transceiver to communicate with a secure network (“Black Network” at fig. 1, p. 4; “Government Private Cellular or Government Private Wireless or Government Private Wired” at Table 2, p. 7) to cause a VPN server to permit the end device to transmit data to the secure network via the first connection and the second connection and to receive data from the secure network via the first connection and the second VPN tunnel (intended use in italics),
CSfC does not teach (A) the first connection and second connection being, respectively, a first virtual private network (VPN) tunnel and a second VPN tunnel; (B) the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device; and (C) the transceiver to communicate with the secure network via a wireless communication protocol.
(A), (C)
CSfC teaches VPN tunnels (“Outer VPN tunnel” at p. 9; “Inner VPN tunnel” at p. 19); and
communicating via a wireless communication protocol (“Wi-Fi connectivity by a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)” at p. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of CSfC’s first connection and second connection to be, respectively, a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel as taught by CSfC and for CSfC’s communicating to be via a wireless communication protocol as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
(B)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for CSfC’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing Lindberg).
Regarding claim 2, while CSfC teaches wherein the mobile hardware VPN device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4) is communicatively coupled to the end device (“End User Device” at fig. 1, p. 4) via a network port of the mobile hardware VPN device (CSfC at least suggests the existence of a port in the Outer VPN Gateway to connect to the End User Device at fig. 1, p. 4),
CSfC does not teach a cable received in the suggested network port.
CSfC teaches an Ethernet cable (“connected to the Dedicated Outer VPN using an Ethernet cable” at p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CSfC’s suggested network port to received a cable as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
Regarding claim 4, CSfC does not teach wherein the communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver is a wired communicative coupling.
CSfC teaches a wired communicative coupling (“an Ethernet cable” at p. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CSfC’s communicative coupling between the mobile hardware VPN device and the transceiver to be a wired communicative coupling as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
Regarding claim 7, CSfC teaches wherein the second VPN tunnel is to transmit encrypted data from the end device, the encrypted data including Internet Protocol-based data (intended use in italics)5.
Regarding claim 15, while CSfC teaches wherein transmitting the second encrypted data (“encrypted twice: . . . then by an Outer VPN Component” at p. 4) to the transceiver (“Outer Firewall” at fig. 1, p. 4) includes transmitting the second encrypted data via a connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Outer Firewall” and “Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4) between the mobile hardware VPN device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4) and the transceiver,
CSfC does not teach the connection being a wired connection.
CSfC teaches a wired connection (“a hard wired connection such as Ethernet or Ethernet over USB” at p. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CSfC’s connection to be a wired connection as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
Regarding claim 16, while CSfC teaches further including transmitting the first encrypted data (“the received packet is correspondingly decrypted twice: first by an Outer VPN Component, and then by an Inner Encryption Component.” at p. 4) from the end device (“End User Device” at fig. 1, p. 4) to the mobile hardware VPN device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4) via a connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “End User Device” and “Outer VPN Gateway”) between the end device and a network port (CSfC at least suggests the existence of a port in the Outer VPN Gateway to connect to the End User Device at fig. 1, p. 4) of the mobile hardware VPN device,
CSfC does not teach the connection being a wired connection.
CSfC teaches a wired connection (“a hard wired connection such as Ethernet or Ethernet over USB” at p. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CSfC’s connection to be a wired connection as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
Regarding claim 17, while CSfC teaches a method comprising:
generating first encrypted data (“encrypted twice: first by an Inner Encryption Component” at p. 4) via a first connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Red Management Services” and “Inner Encryption Component(s)”; such a line is associated with “End User Device” because the line and the “End User Device” both exist in fig. 1) associated with an end device (“End User Device” at fig. 1, p. 4);
generating second encrypted data (“encrypted twice: . . . then by an Outer VPN Component” at p. 4) via a second connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Gray Firewall” and “Outer Firewall”) associated with a hardware VPN device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4), the second encrypted data including the first encrypted data (“classified data is encrypted twice” at p. 4);
transmitting the second encrypted data to a transceiver (“Outer Firewall” at fig. 1, p. 4);
transmitting, by the transceiver, the second encrypted data to a secure network (“Black Network” at fig. 1, p. 4; “Government Private Cellular or Government Private Wireless or Government Private Wired” at Table 2, p. 7) for decryption of the first encrypted data and the second encrypted data (intended use in italics); and
receiving, at the end device, via the first VPN tunnel and the second VPN tunnel, data (“the received packet” and “classified data” at p. 4) from the secure network,
CSfC does not teach (A) the first connection and second connection being, respectively, a first virtual private network (VPN) tunnel and a second VPN tunnel; (B) the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device; and (C) the transmitting by the transceiver being via a wireless communication protocol.
(A), (C)
CSfC teaches VPN tunnels (“Outer VPN tunnel” at p. 9; “Inner VPN tunnel” at p. 19); and
transmitting via a wireless communication protocol (“Wi-Fi connectivity by a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)” at p. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of CSfC’s first connection and second connection to be, respectively, a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel as taught by CSfC and for CSfC’s transmitting by the transceiver to be via a wireless communication protocol as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
(B)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for CSfC’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing Lindberg).
Regarding claim 18, CSfC teaches further including communicating, via the transceiver (“Outer Firewall” at fig. 1, p. 4), with an untrusted network (“Black Network” at fig. 1, p. 4) to transmit the second encrypted data.
Regarding claim 19, CSfC teaches wherein the second VPN tunnel (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Gray Firewall” and “Outer Firewall”) is an Internet Protocol Security (IPSec) Internet Key Exchange (IKE) VPN tunnel (“the IPsec tunnel is limited to Internet Key Exchange (IKE)” at p. 9).
Regarding claim 20, CSfC teaches wherein the first encrypted data (“encrypted twice: first by an Inner Encryption Component” at p. 4) includes Internet Protocol-based data (“The MA solution uses Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) as the Outer Tunnel and, depending on the solution design, IPsec or Transport Layer Security (TLS) as the Inner layer of protection.” at p. 3).
Regarding claim 21, CSfC teaches wherein the second VPN tunnel is to transmit twice- encrypted data from the secure network and the first VPN tunnel is to transmit once-encrypted data from the secure network, the twice-encrypted data including the once-encrypted data (intended use in italics)6.
Regarding claim 24, while CSfC teaches a system (fig. 1, p. 4) comprising:
a hardware virtual private network (VPN) device (“Outer VPN Gateway” at fig. 1, p. 4);
a first connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Outer VPN Gateway” and “Outer Firewall”) established between the hardware VPN device and a transceiver (“Outer Firewall” at fig. 1, p. 4);
a second connection (fig. 1 illustrates a line between “Outer VPN Gateway” and “Inner Encryption Component”) established between the hardware VPN device and a device (“Inner Encryption Component” at fig. 1, p. 4), the second connection to transmit first encrypted data (“encrypted twice: first by an Inner Encryption Component” at p. 4) to the hardware VPN, the first encrypted data generated at the device (“encrypted twice: first by an Inner Encryption Component” at p. 4); and
machine-readable instructions; and
at least one programmable circuit to execute to the machine-readable instructions to:
encrypt, via the hardware VPN device, the first encrypted data to generate second encrypted data (“encrypted twice: . . . then by an Outer VPN Component” at p. 4), the second encrypted data including the first encrypted data (“encrypted twice: . . . then by an Outer VPN Component” at p. 4);
cause the second encrypted data to be transmitted to a secure network (“Black Network” at fig. 1, p. 4; “Government Private Cellular or Government Private Wireless or Government Private Wired” at Table 2, p. 7) via the first connection; and
decrypt, via the hardware VPN device, third data (“the received packet” at p. 4) received from the secure network via the first connection and the second connection (“At the other end of the data flow, the received packet is correspondingly decrypted twice: first by an Outer VPN Component, and then by an Inner Encryption Component.” at p. 4) to generate unencrypted data (intended use in italics),
CSfC does not teach (A) the first connection and second connection being, respectively, a first virtual private network (VPN) tunnel and a second VPN tunnel; (B) the hardware VPN device being a mobile hardware VPN device; and (C) the device being an end device.
(A), (C)
CSfC teaches VPN tunnels (“Outer VPN tunnel” at p. 9; “Inner VPN tunnel” at p. 19); and
an end device (“End User Device” and “Red Management Services” at fig. 1, p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of CSfC’s first connection and second connection to be, respectively, a first VPN tunnel and a second VPN tunnel as taught by CSfC and for CSfC’s device to be an end device as taught by CSfC “to protect classified data.” CSfC p. 1.
(B)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention for CSfC’s hardware VPN device to be a mobile hardware VPN device since the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” MPEP § 2144.04(V)(A) (describing Lindberg).
Regarding claim 25, CSfC teaches wherein the third data (“the received packet” at p. 4) has a first layer of encryption (“classified data is encrypted twice: first by an Inner Encryption Component, and then by an Outer VPN Component” at p. 4) and one or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to decrypt the third data after a second layer of encryption has been removed from the third data by the end device7.
Regarding claim 26, CSfC teaches wherein or more of the at least one programmable circuit is to cause the undecrypted data to be transmitted to the end device8.
Regarding claim 27, claim 24 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 24 are equally applicable to claim 27.
CsfC and Braun
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over CsfC in view of Braun.
Regarding claim 3, CsfC does not teach wherein a Wi-Fi antenna of the mobile hardware VPN device is disabled.
Braun teaches disabling a Wi-Fi antenna of a device (“the communication device 102 might determine to disable the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” at ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CsfC’s mobile hardware VPN device to disable its Wi-Fi antenna as taught by Braun to prevent “a possible degradation in performance of the proximate Wi-Fi antenna.” Braun ¶ 64.
CsfC and Liu ‘318
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over CsfC in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0195318 A1; filed Jan. 4, 2016)(Liu ‘318).
Regarding claim 5, CsfC does not teach wherein the wireless communication protocol is a 5G communication protocol.
Liu ‘318 teaches a 5G communication protocol (“5G cellular data service” at ¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for CsfC’s wireless communication protocol to be a 5G communication protocol as taught by Liu ‘318 to prevent “to establish a connection to the Internet 220 via a cellular service 115.” Liu ¶ 41.
CsfC and Xu
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over CsfC in view of Xu (US 2016/0373651 A1; filed May 24, 2016).
Regarding claim 6, Xu does not teach further including a portable battery coupled to one or more of the mobile hardware VPN device or the transceiver.
Xu teaches a portable battery coupled to a device (“he portable battery apparatus 200 is coupled to a mobile device (e.g., the sports camera 100)” at ¶ 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for one or more of CsfC’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver to be coupled to portable battery as taught by Xu to “provide supplemental battery power without interrupting normal operations of” CsfC’s mobile hardware VPN device or transceiver. Xu ¶ 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 17, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 17.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 17 and intervening claim 22, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 17 and intervening claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: US-20220070144-A1; US-20210385202-A1; US-20190354685-A1; and US-20150365233-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the transceiver. As such, the recited intended use limits the transceiver to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477–78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
2 The wireless communication protocol is from an intended use of claim 1’s transceiver. See n. 2 supra. Young’s transceiver is capable of performing the intended function.
3 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the second VPN tunnel. As such, the recited intended use limits the second VPN tunnel to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Young’s second VPN tunnel is capable of performing the intended function.
4 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the second VPN tunnel and the first VPN tunnel. As such, the recited intended use limits the second VPN tunnel and the first VPN tunnel to those that are capable of performing the intended functions. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. Young’s second VPN tunnel and first VPN tunnel is capable of performing the intended functions.
5 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the second VPN tunnel. As such, the recited intended use limits the second VPN tunnel to those that are capable of performing the intended function. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. CSfC’s second VPN tunnel is capable of performing the intended function.
6 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the second VPN tunnel and the first VPN tunnel. As such, the recited intended use limits the second VPN tunnel and the first VPN tunnel to those that are capable of performing the intended functions. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. CSfC’s second VPN tunnel and first VPN tunnel is capable of performing the intended functions.
7 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the at least one programmable circuit. As such, the recited intended use limits the at least one programmable circuit to those that are capable of performing the intended functions. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. CSfC’s at least one programmable circuit is capable of performing the intended functions.
8 The Examiner italicizes the limitation, for this limitation merely indicates an intended use of the at least one programmable circuit. As such, the recited intended use limits the at least one programmable circuit to those that are capable of performing the intended functions. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477–78. CSfC’s at least one programmable circuit is capable of performing the intended functions.
Prosecution Insights