DETAILED ACTION
The following communication is in response to Amendment filed on December 2, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 2, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, 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
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.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 9,438,699 (hereinafter “Shetty”) in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0310601 (hereinafter “Yu”).
Shetty discloses or suggests:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Shetty a method of wireless communication performed by a mobile gateway, the method and the mobile gateway comprising:
one or more processors (see at least column 23 line 56 – column 24 line 3, one or more processors); and
one or more memories in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more memories comprising computer program instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to (see at least column 24 lines 18-37, a computer-readable storage medium containing instructions to cause a programmable processor to perform the method when the instructions are executed):
receive, from a device tethered to the mobile gateway, a transmission control protocol (TCP) packet destined for an application server at a network to which the mobile gaeway is connected (see at least Fig. 4A and column 22 lines 20-54, mobile gateway receives, from a client, TCP data destined for a server),
the TCP packet including a window size indicating available buffer space in a receive buffer of the device tethered to the mobile gateway (see at least Fig. 4A, column 20 line 64- column 21 line 10, and column 22 lines 37-54, mobile gateway determines a minimum window sizes advertised in received packets of the network session, where the TCP window size is known to indicate available buffer space in a buffer of the source of the packet); and
modify the window size in the received TCP packet by changing the indicated available buffer space in the receive buffer of the device tethered to the mobile gateway to indicate that the receive buffer of the device tethered to the mobile gateway is full (see at least Fig. 4A and column 22 lines 37-54, the mobile gateway modifies the packets of both packet flows by setting a TCP window size of the received packets to 0 before forwarding the packets to their destinations (e.g., the server), where the zero-value TCP window size indicates that the receive buffer of the client is full); and
transmit the TCP packet to the application server (see at least Fig. 4B, column 20 lines 61-63, and column 22 lines 37-54, the mobile gateway forwards the modified packets to their destinations (e.g., the server)).
As described above, Shetty discloses or suggests the mobile gateway performing TCP proxying configured to modify the packets by setting the TCP window size to 0 on behalf of the client tethered to the mobile gateway. However, Shetty does not explicitly disclose or suggest that the mobile gateway performing TCP proxying is a user equipment (UE) and the modifying is based on a buffer threshold of the UE.
In an analogous art, Yu discloses or suggests an in-path TCP proxy collocated with a UE (see at least paragraph 51), where the in-path TCP proxy modifies the current receive window size in a TCP message based on a buffer threshold of the UE (see at least paragraphs 59 and 62, the in-path TCP proxy updates or adjusts the current receive window size if the in-path TCP proxy determines that the TCP connection or network is congested based on buffer sizes associated with network entities including the in-path TCP proxy, which is collocated with the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the teaching associated with the in-path TCP proxy, as taught by Yu in to the invention of Shetty in order to accurately adjust the receive window size to accommodate for changes in the TCP connection.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 14, Shetty, as modified by Yu, discloses or suggests all of the subject matter of claims 1 and 10 above and Shetty, as modified by Yu, further discloses or suggests that the computer program instructions are further configured to modify the window size comprise computer program instructions configured to modify the window size at the device tethered to the UE to indicate a window full condition or a zero window condition (see at least column 21 lines 8-15 and column 22 lines 50-54, modifying the TCP window size value of each received packet to a value of 0 to indicate zero-window condition, which corresponds to a window full condition).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty in view of Yu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0288611 (hereinafter “Fan”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Shetty, as modified by Yu, discloses all of the subject matter of the claimed invention except that the TCP packet comprises a TCP acknowledgement (ACK). However, in an analogous art, Fan discloses that a TCP ACK can have a receive window field (see at least paragraphs 28 and 29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the TCP packet of Shetty, as modified by Yu, with the TCP ACK of Fan because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a simple substitution and the results were reasonably predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 03/11/2026