Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/841,443

CONTROL SYSTEM, ROUTER, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Aug 26, 2024
Examiner
THIEU, BENJAMIN M
Art Unit
2441
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 611 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
623
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.7%
-28.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.7%
+1.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 611 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendments filed August 26, 2024. Claim(s) 1-11 have been amended. Claims 13-18 have been added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-18 is/are pending and have been considered as follows. 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/26/2024 & 4/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As to Claim 12, Claim 12 discloses “A router, that disconnects communication established between a router and a first provider…”. However, the body of the claim does not provide any hardware elements associated with router. Therefore, the claim is non-statutory and software per se. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Love et al. (US 8,145,788 B1, hereinafter Love). As to Amended Claim 1, Love discloses a control system, comprising: at least a processor (Love; Fig. 4); and a memory in circuit communication with the processor (Love; Fig. 4), wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform (Love; Fig. 4): monitoring a public server accessible via lines of at least two Internet service providers ((Love; Fig. 2; [col. 4, lines 29-54]), where Love discloses at least two ISP being assessable to a server.); and routing, wherein the monitoring comprises notifying load information indicating a load state of the public server ((Love; Fig. 3; [col. 5, lines 23-57]), where Love discloses a connection manager can manage the load of the network.), and the routing comprises: selecting an Internet service provider according to the load information notified by the monitoring ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network.); and determining a delivery route in such a way that a packet is delivered through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selecting ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network and routing the packets through the identified ISP.). As to Amended Claim 2, Love discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring comprises notifying the load information when a load on the public server is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36]). As to Amended Claim 3, Love discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring comprises not generating a new notification of load information until a predetermined time has elapsed since the load information has been notified (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36; col. 14, lines 18-30]). As to Amended Claim 4, Love discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the selecting comprises blocking a delivery route via the line of the Internet service provider used before the selection when the delivery of a transmission packet has been started through a delivery route via the line of the selected Internet service provider ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to Amended Claim 5, Love discloses the control system according to claim 1, wherein the routing comprises delivering a packet transmitted by a computer provided in an internal network to an Internet through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selecting ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to Amended Claim 6, Love discloses a control method, comprising: executed by a computer, monitoring a public server accessible via lines of at least two Internet service providers ((Love; Fig. 2; [col. 4, lines 29-54]), where Love discloses at least two ISP being assessable to a server.); wherein the monitoring comprises notifying load information indicating a load state of the public server ((Love; Fig. 3; [col. 5, lines 23-57]), where Love discloses a connection manager can manage the load of the network.); selecting an Internet service provider according to the load information notified by the server monitoring step ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network.); and determining a delivery route in such a way that a packet is delivered through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selecting ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network and routing the packets through the identified ISP.). As to Amended Claim 7, Love discloses the control method according to claim 6, wherein the monitoring comprises notifying the load information when a load on the public server is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36]). As to Amended Claim 8, Love discloses the control method according to claim 6, wherein the monitoring comprises not generating a new notification of load information until a predetermined time has elapsed since the load information has been notified (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36; col. 14, lines 18-30]). As to Amended Claim 9, Love discloses a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium recording a program, the program causing a computer to execute: a server monitoring process of monitoring a public server accessible via lines of at least two Internet service providers ((Love; Fig. 2; [col. 4, lines 29-54]), where Love discloses at least two ISP being assessable to a server.); wherein the server monitoring process comprises notifying load information indicating a load state of the public server ((Love; Fig. 3; [col. 5, lines 23-57]), where Love discloses a connection manager can manage the load of the network.); a selection process of selecting an Internet service provider according to the load information notified by the server monitoring process ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network.); and a control process of determining a delivery route in such a way that a packet is delivered through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selection process ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network and routing the packets through the identified ISP.). As to Amended Claim 10, Love discloses the medium according to claim 9, wherein the server monitoring process comprises notifying the load information when a load on the public server is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36]). As to Amended Claim 11, Love discloses the program-medium according to claim 9, wherein the server monitoring process comprises not generating a new notification of load information until a predetermined time has elapsed since the load information has been notified (Love; [col. 8, lines 8-36; col. 14, lines 18-30]). As to Claim 12, Love discloses a router, that disconnects communication established between the router and a first provider in a communication path between a public server and the first provider and establishes communication between a second provider and the router, when a load on the public server satisfies a condition for switching a provider ((Love; Figs. 8-9, 14; [col. 8, lines 65 – col. 9, lines 23; col. 11, lines 30-55]), where Love discloses determining an ISP based on the load of the network and routing the packets through the identified ISP.) As to New Claim 13, Love discloses the control method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting comprises blocking a delivery route via the line of the Internet service provider used before the selection when the delivery of a transmission packet has been started through a delivery route via the line of the selected Internet service provider ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to New Claim 14, Love discloses the control method according to claim 6, comprising: executed by a computer, delivering a packet transmitted by a computer provided in an internal network to an Internet through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selecting ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to New Claim 15, Love discloses the medium according to claim 9, wherein the selection process comprises blocking a delivery route via the line of the Internet service provider used before the selection when the delivery of a transmission packet has been started through a delivery route via the line of the selected Internet service provider ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to New Claim 16, Love discloses the medium according to claim 9, wherein the program causing the computer to execute: a process of delivering a packet transmitted by a computer provided in an internal network to an Internet through a line of the Internet service provider selected by the selection process ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to New Claim 17, Love discloses the router according to claim 12, that blocks a delivery route via the line of the Internet service provider used before the selection when the delivery of a transmission packet has been started through a delivery route via the line of the selected Internet service provider ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). As to New Claim 18, Love discloses the router according to claim 12, that delivers a packet transmitted by a computer provided in an internal network to an Internet through a line of the selected Internet service provider ((Love; Fig. 14; [col. 8, lines 55 – col. 9, lines 4; col. 11, lines 30-67]), where Love discloses routes are identified based on the load and ISP rules.). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at (571) 272-7952. 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. /BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 3.6.2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603851
DATA PATH RULE MANAGEMENT IN VIRTUAL SWITCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592995
SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AND SCREENING INCOMING CALLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587478
Software Assisted Implementation of Congestion Signaling
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581447
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580784
SHARED AUGMENTED REALITY EXPERIENCE IN VIDEO CHAT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 611 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month