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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/10/24 (two) are 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 § 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) 21-25, 27-35 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,418,582 by Swain (Swain) in view of US 2021/0096936 by Seshardri et al. (Seshardri).
With respect to claim 21, Swain teaches a method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud server, an application to a client device through a first communication path; (Col. 19 lines line 53 – Col. 20 line 39, Col. 6 lines 41-51 – server application provided to client via a primary connection, such as through connection 614, server may be cloud based)
receiving, by the cloud server, a signal from the client device requesting an establishment of a new communication path; (Col. 19 lines line 53 – Col. 20 line 39, Col. 6 lines 41-51 – client may signal additional connections after 614, such as 616-620, server may be cloud based)
establishing, by the cloud server, a first connection between the cloud server and an edge server; (Col. 19 lines line 53 – Col. 20 line 39, Fig. 6 – connections are through gateway (edge))
signaling, by the cloud server, the edge server to establish a second connection between the client device and the edge server; (Col. 19 lines line 53 – Col. 20 line 39, Fig. 6 – additional connections are through gateway (edge))
establishing the new communication path between the cloud server and the client device using the first connection and the second connection, wherein the cloud server is associated with the application; (Col. 19 lines line 53 – Col. 20 line 39, Fig. 6 =– client requests establishes connections with the server)
migrating communication from the first communication path to the new communication path; and providing the application to the client device through the new communication path. (Col. 20 lines 14-39 – based on a priority ranking, a communication session can be migrated to the new connection path and provide the application through the migrated path).
Swain does not explicitly disclose the cloud server include a control plane for establishing the connection. Seshardi teaches a control plane can be used in an edge device between networks for managing connections (Paragraph 53 control plane orchestrates and manages control data flow including establishing connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the edge server of Swain use a control plane in establishing connections as in Seshardi. Using known control plane technology for the predictable result of establishing the connections desired in Swain would have been obvious.
With respect to claim 22, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the cloud server continues to host the application after the new communication path is established. (Col. 20 lines 39-47 – client may maintain communication session with the same server after migration to the new connection).
With respect to claim 23, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the first communication path is a direct connection between the client device and the cloud server. Col. 20 lines 4-12, Col. 22 lines 22-55 – connections may be made via a number of different ways including different protocols, routing paths, which would include in scope direction connections).
With respect to claim 24, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the first communication path uses a second edge server for communicating between the client device and the cloud server. (Col. 20 lines 4-12, Col. 22 lines 22-55 – connections may be made via a number of different ways including different protocols, routing paths, including using different devices such as edge devices).
With respect to claim 25, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein after migrating the communication, the cloud server communicates with the client device using the new communication path. (Col. 20 lines 39-47 – client maintains communication session with the same server after migration to the new connection).
With respect to claim 27, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the signal indicates an availability of prefixes associated with the client device. (Col. 20 lines 4-12 – request includes protocol information for the different protocols being used by the client for the connections, session identifiers and property and priority information).
With respect to claim 28, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the communication between the client device and the application is not interrupted while establishing the new communication path. (Col. 20 lines 39-47 – client maintains active communication session with the same server during migrations).
With respect to claim 29, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the edge server is located at a different geographical location than the cloud server. (Col. 15 lines 19-37 – noting the edge gateway is an appliance)
Claims 30-35, 37-40 are similar in scope to claims 21-15 and 27-29 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim(s) 26, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain and Seshardi and further in view of US 2018/0020064 by Milanese et al. (Milanese).
With respect to claim 26, Swain teaches the method of claim 21, wherein prior to the cloud server receiving the signal from the client device, the control plane sends the client device a command to migrate the communication between the client device and the cloud server from a prior communication path to the new communication path.
Milanese teaches a gateway may send a migration command to client to migrate a connection. (Paragraph 31-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gateway in Swain send a migration command as in Milanese. One would be motivated to have this as it provides further performance advantages based on path knowledge the client may not be aware of (Milanese Paragraphs 2-3, 9-10).
Claim 36 is similar in scope to claim 26 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. patent 12,120,186 contain every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application present the same elements of the Patent claims but from the perspective of the cloud server. Accordingly, Claims 21-40 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. "A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim." In re Lonqi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455