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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberstein (US 2020/0107238) in view of Christie (US 2005/0025163)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Silberstein teaches a wireless communication device comprising:
a wireless communication unit confiqured to perform communication by a first connection to a first communication network, wherein the first communication network permits the first connection in a first area; (¶ [0028], see specifically the first Wi-Fi network and the second wi-fi network);
the wireless communication unit confiqured to perform communication by a second connection connecting to a second communication network (¶ [0028], see specifically the first wi-fi network, the second wifi network and or cellular); and
wherein the second communication network is different from the first communication network (¶ [0028], see specifically the first wi-fi network, the second wifi network and or cellular)
and a control unit confiqured to: predict a communication quality of the communication by the first wireless communication unit; determine, whether to perform the communication by the second wireless communication unit, based on whether or not the predicted communication quality that satisfies a specific communication quality; and (¶ [0044], see specifically switch network).
Silberstein fails to explicitly teach the communication unit are separate first and second communication units, and simultaneously transmit, based on the determination to perform the communication by the second wireless communication unit, a first part of transmission data via the first wireless communication unit and a second part of the transmission data via the second wireless communication unit.
It is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to have two separate parts instead of a single unified part absent a showing of unexpected results. Thus, at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shift separate the single communication unit to two separate communication units since it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to make the components separate absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").The contention of obvious choice in design can be overcome if Applicant establishes unexpected results. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Christie from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches simultaneously transmit, based on the determination to perform the communication by the second wireless communication unit, a first part of transmission data via the first wireless communication unit and a second part of the transmission data via the second wireless communication unit (¶ [0017], see specifically uses both tunnels to send packets).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of telecommunications at the time of the filing of the invention to send packets through multiple tunnels in various ways in the system of Christie as taught by Silberstein
The motivation is that multiple tunnels allow for versatility in the usage of the tunnels, which increases bandwidth and/or redundancy.
Regarding Claim 7, Silberstein teaches the second communication network is a public network (¶ [0028], see specifically cellular);
Regarding Claim 8, Silberstein teaches the second communication network permits the connection in one of a second area or the first area, and the first area is different from the second area (¶ [0028], see specifically the first wi-fi network, the second wifi network);
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 ROBERT M MORLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM - 4PM.
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.
/ROBERT M MORLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
ROBERT M. MORLAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2409