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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 20 contain improper reference characters. Reference characters can only be used to refer to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings, not to elements in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it is not a sentence as required by MPEP 608.01(m) as it contains multiple period “.” punctuation marks. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be definitively ascertained. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is treating claim 1 as if the elements following a through f are, in fact properly claimed method steps. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2 through 10 are rejected as depending from Claim 1 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it is not a sentence as required by MPEP 608.01(m) as it contains multiple period “.” punctuation marks. As such, the scope of the claim cannot be definitively ascertained. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is treating Claim 11 as if the elements following a through f are, in fact properly claimed steps. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12 through 20 are rejected as depending from Claim 11 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "of the at least one available node" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as an “available node” as described is not claimed earlier in claim 1. Claim 1 is rejected in this basis. Claims 2 through 10 are rejected as depending from Claim 1 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 2 recites “in step e”. While there are improper reference characters a through f in clam 1, they are not labeled as “step a” and so on. Claim 2 is rejected in this basis. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected as depending from Claim 2 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first node of the selected cloud" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not claimed earlier in any of claims 1-4 and the first node of claim 1 is not necessarily of the selected cloud.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the IP header of the second data packet is different from the IP header of the first data packet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is not claimed that the first packet is an IP data p[packet with an IP header.
Claim 10 recites “in step f”. While there are improper reference characters a through f in clam 1, they are not labeled as “step a” and so on. Claim 10 is rejected in this basis.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "of the at least one available node" in lines 29-30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as an “available node” as described is not claimed earlier in claim 11. Claim 11 is rejected in this basis. Claims 12 through 20 are rejected as depending from Claim 11 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 12 recites “in step f”. While there are improper reference characters a through f in clam 11, they are not labeled as “step a” and so on. Claim 12 is rejected in this basis. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected as depending from Claim 12 and failing to correct the deficiencies thereof.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first node of the selected cloud" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this limitation is not claimed earlier in any of claims 11-14 and the first node of claim 11 is not necessarily of the selected cloud.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the IP header of the second data packet is different from the IP header of the first data packet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is not claimed that the first packet is an IP data p[packet with an IP header.
Claim 20 recites “in step f”. While there are improper reference characters a through f in clam 11, they are not labeled as “step a” and so on. Claim 20 is rejected in this basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0373556 by Xu.
As to claims 1 and 11, Xu discloses a method/system for establishing at least one connection between a first network device and a second network device, comprising:
a. at the second network device, selecting a cloud (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
b. at the second network device, establishing at least one first connection with a first node (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
c. at the second network device, generating an access code locally (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
d. at the first network device, by using the access code, establishing at least one second connection with a second node(Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
e. at the first network device, forwarding a first data packet received from a local device to the second node (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
f. at the second network device, receiving a second data packet; wherein: the first data packet is part of the payload of the second data packet (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
the access code comprises the access information for both the second network device and the selected cloud (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73);
each of the first node and the second node is one of the at least one available node of the selected cloud (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73); and
the first node and the second node are capable of exchanging data and information (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 2 and 12, Xu further discloses wherein the first data packet is forwarded to the second node in step e/f if a first condition is satisfied (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 3 and 13, Xu further discloses wherein the first condition is satisfied if the first network device is on an access control list (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 4 and 14, Xu further discloses wherein the access control list is stored in the first node of the selected cloud (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 5 and 15, Xu further discloses wherein the first node and the second node are the same node (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 6 and 16, Xu further discloses wherein the second node is selected based on a criterion (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 7 and 17, Xu further discloses wherein the access code is in any form of the following: a token, a one-dimensional bar code, a two-dimensional bar code, a string, or a numerical string (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 8 and 18, Xu further discloses further comprises: assigning an outbound traffic policy to each of the established at least one second connection (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 9 and 19, Xu further discloses wherein the second data packet comprises an IP header, wherein the IP header of the second data packet is different from the IP header of the first data packet (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
As to claims 10 and 20, Xu further discloses wherein encapsulation and decapsulation are performed during the forwarding in step e/f (Xu: Fig 5; Page 6, Sec 61 – Page 7, Sec 73).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0283448 by Dixon et al. discloses providing a barcode over a network
U.S. Patent No. 9,438,575 to Shi discloses smart phone authentication using a QR code
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 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, Jeffrey L Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
MICHAEL S. MCNALLY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2432
/Michael S McNally/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights