DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-13 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.
In regards to the two wireless NICs within a repeater device, the newly added reference Wang discloses a device when in relay mode receives and transmits data from one interface to the other bridged by a controller. Similar to the repeater device, the first interface receives data from another computing device and that data gets routed to a second interface that the device has to transmit to a further device. Regarding the location of where the virtual interface gets initialized Balasubramanian discloses a WDS the root AP itself is a repeater device.
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20220210007 A1, hereinafter Wang) in view of BALASUBRAMANIAN et al. (US 20140177513 A1, hereinafter Balasubramanian).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Wang discloses:
at a repeater device, implementing a network bridge between a first wireless network interface controller and a second wireless network interface controller of the repeater device; (Paragraph [0039], “The switch board controller (230) is configured such that, if the edge server (200) is in the relay mode (170), data that is received via the first wireless interface is routed to the second wireless interface.” And Fig. 5 discloses a repeater equivalent device with 2 wireless interfaces performing transmission and reception (there must be a WNIC) and its being bridged by the switch board controller)
establishing a connection between the first wireless network interface controller and another communications controller of another computing device; (Paragraph [0039], “The switch board controller (230) is configured such that, if the edge server (200) is in the relay mode (170), data that is received via the first wireless interface…“ There must be a connection established to receive this data.)
establishing a further connection between the second wireless network interface controller and a further communications controller of a further computing device; (Paragraph [0039], “The switchboard then routes the received data via the second wireless interface to at least one other edge server (201).”)
Wang does not disclose:
and in response to establishing the further connection, initializing a virtual interface at the repeater device, the virtual interface corresponding to the further communications controller.
Balasubramanian discloses:
and in response to establishing the further connection, initializing a virtual interface at the repeater device, the virtual interface corresponding to the further communications controller. (Paragraph [0036], “the creation of virtual interfaces 141 and 142 for repeater devices R1 and R2, respectively, allows bridging table 112 to store forwarding information for repeater devices R1 and R2” The creation of the virtual interfaces are at the repeater device.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
Regarding claims 3 and 9 Wang does not disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual interface is associated with the second wireless network interface controller of the repeater device.
Balasubramanian discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual interface is associated with the second wireless network interface controller of the repeater device. (Paragraph [0036], “the creation of virtual interfaces 141 and 142 for repeater devices R1 and R2, respectively, allows bridging table 112 to store forwarding information for repeater devices R1 and R2” The creation of the virtual interfaces are at the repeater device.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
Regarding claim 4 and 10 Wang does not disclose:
selecting an identifier of the virtual interface.
Balasubramanian discloses:
selecting an identifier of the virtual interface. (Paragraph [0032], “bridging engine 111 is responsible for extracting address information and other routing information from the received packet's header, searching its associated bridging table 112 for a matching entry, and then selectively forwarding the packet to its correct destination in response to the matching entry in bridging table 112.” Along with paragraph [0036] The identifier for the virtual interface must (some sort of mac address) for the bridging engine to forwarding information for the interface.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
Regarding claims 5 and 11 Wang does not disclose:
selecting the identifier includes selecting the identifier from a predetermined set of virtual interface identifiers.
Balasubramanian discloses:
selecting the identifier includes selecting the identifier from a predetermined set of virtual interface identifiers. (Paragraph [0032], “bridging engine 111 is responsible for extracting address information and other routing information from the received packet's header, searching its associated bridging table 112 for a matching entry, and then selectively forwarding the packet to its correct destination in response to the matching entry in bridging table 112.” And paragraph [0004] “The bridging engine is typically associated with a bridging table that stores routing information corresponding to the Ethernet and WLAN ports, and the WLAN controller is typically associated with its own forwarding table that stores routing information corresponding to the repeater devices and/or STAs connected to the repeater devices.” It selectively forwards packages to its destination by using the identifiers of the virtual interfaces such as the mac address, a predetermined identifier.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
Regarding claim 6 and 12 Wang does not fully disclose:
selecting the identifier includes retrieving an identifier of the further communications controller, and generating the identifier based on the identifier of the further communications controller.
Balasubramanian discloses:
selecting the identifier includes retrieving an identifier of the further communications controller, and generating the identifier based on the identifier of the further communications controller. (Paragraph [0032], “bridging engine 111 is responsible for extracting address information and other routing information from the received packet's header, searching its associated bridging table 112 for a matching entry, and then selectively forwarding the packet to its correct destination in response to the matching entry in bridging table 112.” In Wang the second interface is used to transmit to another further communications controller. The generation of the bridging table is based off of the source and destination and thus based on the address/identifier of the further communications controller.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Wang does not disclose:
directing frames addressed to the further communications controller via the virtual interface.
Balasubramanian discloses:
directing frames addressed to the further communications controller via the virtual interface. (Paragraph [0032], “bridging engine 111 is responsible for extracting address information and other routing information from the received packet's header, searching its associated bridging table 112 for a matching entry, and then selectively forwarding the packet to its correct destination in response to the matching entry in bridging table 112.” In Wang the second interface is used to transmit to another further communications controller. The generation of the bridging table is based off of the source and destination and thus based on the address/identifier of the further communications controller.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wang in view of Balasubramanian to incorporate the creation of virtual interfaces for the repeater devices. One would have been motivated to do this for allow the device better efficiency when it operates multiple roles.
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 NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479