Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 2/20/2026 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s arguments submitted on 2/20/2026. The arguments are moot based on a new prior rejection comprising Law (US 10,980,070) as detailed below. Law provides on of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate the Applicant’s newly amended claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 2004/0203670) in view of DaCosta (US 2013/0301628 ) and in further view of Law (US 10,980,780)
Regarding claim 1 ,King discloses a method comprising:
transmitting a first request for data from a client device to a server (King; King teaches a client device may submit a plurality of requests inherently comprising a first request to a sever;
see e.g. [0008] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a conventional wireless communication system 10. The wireless communication system 10 includes a server 12, a wireless network 14, and mobile devices 16. There are n mobile devices 16-1 through 16-n. The server 12 is typically a computer system that operates to send and receive messages to and from the mobile devices 16. ... The messages can also be requests for information (e.g., certain data) that are transmitted from the mobile devices 16 to the server 12. ... provide mobile devices such as mobile telephones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and the like with access to information and services available on the Internet.
see e.g. Fig. 1[00289] illustrating a mobile device(S) sending a first request to a sever);
transmitting a second request for the data from the client device to the server, wherein the second request is transmitted prior to receiving a response to the first request (King; King teaches a a client device (i.e. mobile device) may submit asynchronous requests to the server. The technological nature of the asynchronous request and processing provides for subsequent requests (i.e. second request) to be transmitted prior to receiving a response for the first request;
see e.g. Abstract “A first technique allows mobile devices to communicate with remote servers using asynchronous communications, namely asynchronous requests. Such asynchronous communications allow the processing at a mobile device to continue while the asynchronous request is processed in the background”.
see e.g. [0056] “ ... asynchronous requests are particularly useful in certain situations such as where an origin server (remote server) needs to eventually be updated with some event or action that has occurred on the mobile device 202, but the mobile device 202 does not need to wait until the origin server is updated before it continues.”);
and receiving the data from the server at the client device responsive to the second request; (King teaches the client device utilizes a wireless network to access the server for submitting sequent requests .and receiving data in response to the second request.
see e.g. [0008] “... The server 12 is typically a computer system that operates to send and receive messages to and from the mobile devices 16. The messages are often blocks of data that are to be transmitted to the mobile device 16. As examples, the data can pertain to various types of notifications, electronic mail, news data, configuration information, data files, library files, program files, etc. ...”
see e.g. [0009] “The wireless network 14 typically uses radio transmissions to communicate with the mobile devices 16. The wireless network 14 can use a variety of different networks and communication protocols ...”
see e.g. [0056])
King does not address every conventional wireless infrastructure platform (
“The description need only describe in detail that which is new or not conventional. See Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antibodies, 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. This is equally true whether the claimed invention is directed to a product or a process”) and therefore does not expressly disclose:
establishing a connection between the client device and the server based on a response to the first request or the second request being received at the client device within a predetermined period of time;
receiving the data from the server at the client device responsive to the second request being sent from a different access point than an access point used to send the first request.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pool of wireless access points in the wireless technological environment explicitly taught by King (see e.g. [0009] to contemplate “receiving the data from the server at the client device responsive to the second request being sent from a different access point than an access point used to send the first request” Before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, wireless networks were implemented using known interchangeable infrastructure elements such as access points and base stations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to elect one of these known embodiments and implement a multitude of the these elements (e.g. a first and second access point) is a predictable substation and a design choice supported by KSR v. Teleflex, In re Kuhle; In re Fout; MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B), MPEP 2144.04(IV). The motivation being one of ordinary skill in the art is able to optimize the transmittal and reception of network traffic between client and server devices.
As evidence of the rationale above, Da Costa discloses:
receiving the data from the server at the client device responsive to the second request being sent from a different access point than an access point used to send the first request (Da Costa; Da Costa teaches within the context of asynchronous request and processing the utilization of a pool of wireless access points for load balancing (i.e. a first and second access points)This technological implementation of the access points within the context of asynchronous processing provides for receiving the response data from the response data from the second request via a different access point than access point used to send the first request;
[0051] The object of this invention is a new type of wireless AP nodes that: [0052] Configure them selves based on considerations, set by the access server for the network. [0053] Support automatic load balancing: AP nodes avoid data congestion hot spots. [0054] Support fail over: if one node dies, nodes connected to it automatically switch to another. [0055] Is fully functional when powered up: no installation procedure or site survey required. [0056] Support software upgrades to them selves through a communications interface [0057] Support both isochronous and asynchronous application requirements in the same network )
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
King in view of DaCosta does not expressly disclose:
establishing a connection between the client device and the server based on a response to the first request or the second request being received at the client device within a predetermined period of time;
Law discloses:
establishing a connection between the client device and the server based on a response to the first request or the second request being received at the client device within a predetermined period of time (Law; Law teaches transmitting a request for connection or handshaking and determining whether a handshake response has been received. Law further teaches repeating the connection establishment procedure until a response is received or a connection-establishment timeout expires, wherein the timeout may be a predetermined length of time. Accordingly, Law teaches establishing a connection based on a response being received within a predetermined period of time;
see e.g. Column 10, Line 46 – Column 11, Line 4 “Turning to FIG. 4C, upon the first access point's counter value and the candidate access point's counter value reaching the threshold, the access points may begin connection establishment. The first access point may determine, at step 440, whether its own address or identifier (such as a MAC address, configured name, or other such identifier) is smaller than the corresponding address or identifier of the candidate access point. If the first access point's address is not smaller, then the first access point may determine that it is the client or slave for the P2P connection, and may transmit a request for connection establishment or handshaking to the candidate access point at step 442. The request may be transmitted in any form consistent with the wireless or P2P protocol. The first access point may determine if it has received a handshake response from the candidate access point at step 444. If no response has been received, then at step 450, the first access point may determine if a connection establishment timeout has expired. The connection establishment timeout may be any length of time, such as 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 60 seconds, or any other such value. If the timeout has not expired, then steps 444-450 may be repeated until a response is received or the timeout expires. If the timeout does expire, then the first access point may reset its connection parameters, including an identification of the selected channel and/or candidate access point and the counter value, and return to the channel scanning phase”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Law’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of communication sessions.
Regarding claim 2, King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose . the method of claim 1, wherein the first request is sent from the client device to the access point and the second request is sent from the client device to the different access point (The combined invention per DaCosta provides the utilization of a pool of access points for load balancing such that the firs request and second requests may utilize different access points ;
see e.g. DaCosta:
[0051] The object of this invention is a new type of wireless AP nodes that: [0052] Configure them selves based on considerations, set by the access server for the network. [0053] Support automatic load balancing: AP nodes avoid data congestion hot spots. [0054] Support fail over: if one node dies, nodes connected to it automatically switch to another. [0055] Is fully functional when powered up: no installation procedure or site survey required. [0056] Support software upgrades to them selves through a communications interface [0057] Support both isochronous and asynchronous application requirements in the same network)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
Regarding claim 3, King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the different access point provides a connection to the server that is more optimal than the first access point (The combined solution per DaCosta as DaCosta teaches ([0005)] that wireless networks service applications with various latency requirements and can implement quality of service reservation schemes designated by an application server. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the would have found it obvious to select a different access point that provides a more optimal connection to the server based on such latency requirements and/or QoS schemes..
See e.g. [0005] “A wireless network provides service to a diverse set of applications, with varied latency requirements. One approach to make dumb wireless devices, that are nodes of the network, more application aware by implementing QoS (Quality of Service) reservation schemes dictated by the application server”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 2 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law and in further view of Helferty US 20190026817
Regarding claim 4. King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose the method of claim 1, King does not expressly disclose wherein the first request and the second request are requesting streaming data.
However in analogous art Helferty discloses:
wherein the first request and the second request are requesting streaming data (Helferty; Helferty teaches client devices may issue requests for streaming data;
[0029] In accordance with an embodiment, a plurality of client media devices, media server systems, and/or controlled devices, can communicate with one another using a network, for example the Internet 190, a local area network, peer-to-peer connection, wireless or cellular network, or other form of network. For example, a user 120 can interact 118 with the user interface at a client media device, and issue requests to access media content, for example the playing of a selected music or video item at their device, or at a controlled device, or the streaming of a media channel or video stream to their device, or to a controlled device.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Helferty’s application scheme comprising media streaming. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in enhanced application and/or services.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law and in further view of Tellado (US 2018/0249406)
Regarding claim 5, King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the first request failed based on or more attributes of the access point that forwarded the request to the server (The combined solution per DaCosta ([0005]) as DaCosta teaches that wireless networks must support varied latency requirements and many enforce QoS reservation schemes designated by an application server. It would have been obvious that a request may not be fulfilled when an AP cannot satisfy these constraints;
See e.g. DaCosta [0005] “A wireless network provides service to a diverse set of applications, with varied latency requirements. One approach to make dumb wireless devices, that are nodes of the network, more application aware by implementing QoS (Quality of Service) reservation schemes dictated by the application server)
As evidence of the rationale above Tellado discloses:
wherein the first request failed based on or more attributes of the access point that forwarded the request to the server (Tellado; Tellado discloses that AP’s possess measurable performance attributes such as loss, density, and load, which affect their operational behavior. These attributes correspond directly to reasons why a request forwarded by a given AP may fail;
[0023] “... Thus, a particular “class” of APs may include a group of APs that share a similar set of AP attributes or characteristics (e.g., a class having APs that show characteristics of high AP density, high loss, high station density, and high video streaming). Note that a particular class of APs may include APs from different deployment environments. For example, a first set of APs have been deployed to a first building, and a second set of APs have been deployed to a second building. One class of APs may include some APs from the first set of APs and some APs from the second set of APs.”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tellado’s attributes. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of controlling network traffic.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
Regarding claim 6, King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second request is successful based on or more attributes of the different access point that forwarded the request to the server. server (The combined solution per DaCosta ([0005]) as DaCosta teaches that wireless networks must support varied latency requirements and many enforce QoS reservation schemes designated by an application server. It would have been obvious that a request (e.g. second request) may be fulfilled when an AP can satisfy these constraints;
See e.g. DaCosta [0005] “A wireless network provides service to a diverse set of applications, with varied latency requirements. One approach to make dumb wireless devices, that are nodes of the network, more application aware by implementing QoS (Quality of Service) reservation schemes dictated by the application server)
As evidence of the rationale above Tellado discloses:
wherein the first request failed based on or more attributes of the access point that forwarded the request to the server (Tellado; Tellado discloses that AP’s possess measurable performance attributes such as loss, density, and load, which affect their operational behavior. These attributes correspond directly to reasons why a request may be successful;
[0023] “... Thus, a particular “class” of APs may include a group of APs that share a similar set of AP attributes or characteristics (e.g., a class having APs that show characteristics of high AP density, high loss, high station density, and high video streaming). Note that a particular class of APs may include APs from different deployment environments. For example, a first set of APs have been deployed to a first building, and a second set of APs have been deployed to a second building. One class of APs may include some APs from the first set of APs and some APs from the second set of APs.”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tellado’s attributes. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of controlling network traffic.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 5 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 6 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law and in further view of Miller, WO 2012134692
Regarding claim 7. King in view of DaCosta and in further view of Law disclose the method of claim 1, and although King provides receiving responses in an asynchronous manner, King does not teach a conventional predetermined period of timed and therefore does not expressly disclose wherein the second request is transmitted from the client device a predetermined period of time after the first request is sent and prior to the client device receiving a response to the first request.
However in analogous art Miller discloses:
wherein the second request is transmitted from the client device a predetermined period of time after the first request is sent and prior to the client device receiving a response to the first request (Miller; Miller discloses within the context of asynchronous processing that asynchronous request are transmitted at a predetermined time period; The temporal constraints of the requests and replies are inherently satisfied based on asynchronous processing or the request and replies;
see e.g. [0045] “... send an asynchronous file conversion request ... at defined intervals ...”
Hence Miller contemplates the claim’s requirements that the second request be transmitted a predetermined period of time after the first request, because the use of defined intervals expressly provides a preset predetermined timing between successive asynchronous transmissions. Accordingly, the reference teaches transmitting a subsequent request after a predetermined time elapses following a prior request)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Miller’s timing parameter. The motivation being one of ordinary skill in the art is readily able to implement a conventional technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing network traffic.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate DaCosta’s load balancing scheme comprising wireless access points. The motivation being the combined invention provides for utilizing a known technique resulting in the optimization of network transmission and preventing data congestion hot spots (see e.g. [0053])
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
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 TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights