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 filed 12 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yocam failed to disclose a first user device establishing a second communication channel with a server. As pointed out in the rejection, the user device is the hub device 602, and the second communication channel is link 614(2).
Applicant argues that Roskind failed to disclose estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the first user device; and based on the estimated capacity, transferring the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, by using the first wireless communication channel and the second communication channel. Roskind [0052] disclosed detecting unused service capacity and excess bandwidth – an estimated capacity of a wireless communication channel. The combination of Roskind and Yocum teaches transferring the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, by using the first wireless communication channel and the second communication channel.
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.
Claim(s) 51, 52, 54, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, and 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam et al. (US 2018/0097690) in view of Roskind et al. (US 2015/0381427).
In regard to claim 51, Yocam disclosed a method of transferring data between a server and an equipment which cannot establish a direct wireless communication with the server,
wherein a first user device is capable of transferring a first data with the equipment by using a first wireless communication channel between the equipment and the first user device,
the method comprising:
the first user device establishing a second communication channel for transferring second data with the server; (user device is hub device 602, Figure 6, second communication channel is link 614(2))
Yocam failed to disclose:
estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the first user device; and
based on the estimated capacity, transferring the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, by using the first wireless communication channel and the second communication channel.
However, Roskind disclosed:
estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the first device; and (Roskind [0052])
based on the estimated capacity, transferring the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, by using the first wireless communication channel and the second communication channel. (Roskind [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use estimated bandwidth to transmit data between a network and an IOT equipment in Yocam over an indirect wireless network connection in order to select the ideal time for transferring the data based on network usage.
In regard to claim 52, Roskind disclosed wherein the capacity of the first wireless communication channel comprises any of: a bandwidth, a throughput, a latency, a bit-error rate, BER, and a packet-error rate, PER, of the first wireless communication channel, or (Roskind [0052])
wherein the step of estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the first user device comprises:
estimating the capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the first user device based on:
a property of the first wireless communication channel; and/or (Roskind [0052])
a requirement of transfer of the second data.
In regard to claim 54, Yocam further disclosed a second user device, (Yocam Figure 6)
the second user device is capable of transferring a corresponding first data with the equipment by using the first wireless communication channel between the equipment and the second user device, (Yocam Figure 6)
Yocam failed to disclose:
wherein the step of estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data further comprises:
estimating a second capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the second user device;
wherein the step of transferring the second data between the equipment and the server comprises:
transferring a first part of the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, based on the first estimated capacity; and
transferring a second part of the second data between the equipment and the server via the second user device, based on the second estimated capacity;
wherein the first and second part of the second data are a same part of the second data, or different parts of the second data.
However, Roskind disclosed:
wherein the step of estimating a capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data further comprises:
estimating a second capacity of the first wireless communication channel for transferring the second data between the equipment and the second user device; (Roskind [0052])
wherein the step of transferring the second data further comprises:
transferring a first part of the second data between the equipment and the server via the first user device, based on the first estimated capacity; and (Roskind [0052])
transferring a second part of the second data between the equipment and the server via the second user device, based on the second estimated capacity; (Roskind [0052])
wherein the first and second part of the second data are a same part of the second data, or different parts of the second data. (Roskind [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate capacity in all of the links in Yocam when transferring data between the server and the IoT equipment in Yocam Figure 6.
In regard to claim 60, Yocam further disclosed:
when the second data is an upload data from the equipment to the server, the server sending a response to the first user device indicating whether the second data is successful received or not; Yocam [0145]
the first user device forwarding the response to the equipment. Yocam [0145]
In regard to claim 61, Yocam disclosed:
when the second data is a download data from the server to the equipment, the equipment sending a response to the first user device indicating whether the second data is successful received or not; Yocam [0024]
the first user device forwarding the response to the server. Yocam [0024]
In regard to claim 63, Yocam disclosed wherein the first wireless communication channel is established only when the first user device is within a predetermined distance from the equipment. Yocam [0072]
Claim 64 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 51.
Claim 66 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 63.
Claim 67 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 52.
Claim 69 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 54.
Claim(s) 53 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam/Roskind as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Rosen et al. (US 2016/0316388).
In regard to claim 53, Yocam / Roskind failed to disclose:
when a priority of the transfer of the second data is high, or when a priority of the transfer of the second data is higher than a priority of transfer of the first data,
prioritising the transfer of the second data over the transfer of the first data, and/or
sending a request to the first user device for changing the transfer of the first data for prioritising the transfer of the second data.
However, Rosen disclosed:
when a priority of the transfer of the second data is high, or when a priority of the transfer of the second data is higher than a priority of transfer of the first data, (Rosen [0142]-[0146])
prioritising the transfer of the second data over the transfer of the first data, and/or (Rosen [0142]-[0146])
sending a request to the first user device for changing the transfer of the first data for prioritising the transfer of the second data. (Rosen [0142]-[0146])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prioritize data transfers in Yocam / Roskind for purposes of network congestion relief.
Claim 68 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 53.
Claim(s) 55 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam/Roskind as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Loo et al. (US 12,210,726).
In regard to claim 55, Yocam/Roskind failed to disclose:
before establishing the first wireless communication channel, authenticating the first user device by comparing an identity of the first user device and/or the equipment with identities of at least one trust list.
However, Loo disclosed:
before establishing the first wireless communication channel, authenticating the first user device by comparing an identity of the first user device and/or the equipment with identities of at least one trust list. Loo column 6 lines 40-65
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use authentication of IoT devices with Yocam/Roskind in order to provide better network security.
Claim 70 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 55.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam/Roskind as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0121296).
In regard to claim 56, Yocam/Roskind failed to disclose:
creating a virtual network interface for the first user device using a proxy of the equipment;
establishing, by the first user device, the first wireless communication channel with the proxy.
However, Han disclosed:
creating a virtual network interface for the first user device using a proxy of the equipment; Han [0073]
establishing, by the first user device, the first wireless communication channel with the proxy. Han [0073]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a virtual network interface using a proxy with Yocam/Roskind for purposes of network security.
Claim(s) 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam/Roskind/Han as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0294858).
In regard to claim 57, Yocam/Roskind/Han failed to disclose further comprising:
the proxy establishing a first tunnel between the proxy and the first user device by negotiating with the first user device;
the proxy sending an initial request (SYN) to the first user device through the first tunnel for initiating a first flow of communication session with the server;
the first user device forwarding the initial request (SYN) to the server through the second communication channel;
initiating the first flow of the communication session towards the equipment by sending an initial response (SYN+ACK) to the first user device through the second communication channel;
the first user device forwarding the initial response (SYN+ACK) to the proxy;
the proxy sending an acknowledgement (ACK) to the first user device through the first tunnel for indicating acceptance of the first flow of the communication session initiated by the server;
the first user device forwarding the acknowledgement (ACK) to the server through the second communication channel;
wherein after the server receives the acknowledgement (ACK), the first flow of the communication session through the first user device is established.
However, Yu disclosed further comprising:
the proxy establishing a first tunnel between the proxy and the first user device by negotiating with the first user device;
the proxy sending an initial request (SYN) to the first user device through the first tunnel for initiating a first flow of communication session with the server;
the first user device forwarding the initial request (SYN) to the server through the second communication channel;
initiating the first flow of the communication session towards the equipment by sending an initial response (SYN+ACK) to the first user device through the second communication channel;
the first user device forwarding the initial response (SYN+ACK) to the proxy;
the proxy sending an acknowledgement (ACK) to the first user device through the first tunnel for indicating acceptance of the first flow of the communication session initiated by the server;
the first user device forwarding the acknowledgement (ACK) to the server through the second communication channel;
wherein after the server receives the acknowledgement (ACK), the first flow of the communication session through the first user device is established.
See Yu [0110], [0113]-[0115].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the common TCP commands when establishing a tunnel for Yocam/Roskind/Han in order to setup the tunnel for data transmission.
In regard to claim 58, Yocam/Roskind/Han failed to disclose further including a second user device, the method further comprising:
after the second user device establishing the corresponding first wireless communication channel with the proxy, the proxy sending a first message (ADD_ADDR) to the server through the first tunnel, for informing the existence of the second user device;
the proxy establishing a second tunnel between the proxy and the second user device by negotiating with the second user device;
the proxy sending an initial request (SYN) to the first user device through the second tunnel for initiating a second flow of the communication session with the server;
the second user device forwarding the initial request (SYN) to the server through the second communication channel;
initiating the second flow of the communication session towards the equipment by sending an initial response (SYN+ACK) to the second user device through the second communication channel;
the second user device forwarding the initial response (SYN+ACK) to the proxy;
the proxy sending an acknowledgement (ACK) to the second user device through the second tunnel for indicating acceptance of the second flow of the communication session initiated by the server;
the second user device forwarding the acknowledgement (ACK) to the server through the second communication channel;
wherein after the server receives the acknowledgement (ACK), the second flow of the communication session through the second user device is established.
However, Yu disclosed further including a second user device, the method further comprising:
after the second user device establishing the corresponding first wireless communication channel with the proxy, the proxy sending a first message (ADD_ADDR) to the server through the first tunnel, for informing the existence of the second user device;
the proxy establishing a second tunnel between the proxy and the second user device by negotiating with the second user device;
the proxy sending an initial request (SYN) to the first user device through the second tunnel for initiating a second flow of the communication session with the server;
the second user device forwarding the initial request (SYN) to the server through the second communication channel;
initiating the second flow of the communication session towards the equipment by sending an initial response (SYN+ACK) to the second user device through the second communication channel;
the second user device forwarding the initial response (SYN+ACK) to the proxy;
the proxy sending an acknowledgement (ACK) to the second user device through the second tunnel for indicating acceptance of the second flow of the communication session initiated by the server;
the second user device forwarding the acknowledgement (ACK) to the server through the second communication channel;
wherein after the server receives the acknowledgement (ACK), the second flow of the communication session through the second user device is established.
See Yu [0127]-[0130], [0136]-[0140]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the common TCP commands when establishing a tunnel for Yocam/Roskind/Han in order to setup a second tunnel for data transmission.
In regard to claim 59, Yu further disclosed:
when the established first wireless communication channel of the first user device is interrupted or terminated, terminating the first flow of the established communication session by having the proxy send a second message (REMOVE_ADDR) to the server to terminating the first flow through the second tunnel. Yu [0136]
Claim(s) 62 and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yocam/Roskind as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Turock et al. (US 2025/0124520).
In regard to claim 62, Yocam / Roskind failed to disclose wherein the second data comprise any of a firmware, a log file, usage metrics, a software package, a data stream, a remote management message, a digital signage.
However, Turock disclosed wherein the second data comprise any of a firmware, a log file, usage metrics, a software package, a data stream, a remote management message, a digital signage. Turock [0038]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit firmware over the Yocam network in order to update IoT equipment in Yocam with the latest firmware.
Claim 65 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 62.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Di et al. CN 107147519 B
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights