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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 6-10 are pending in this Office Action.
Claim 6 is amended.
Claims 1-5 are cancelled.
Claims 8-10 are new.
Claims 6-10 are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Previous Rejections/Objections Withdrawn
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 05/19/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS] in view of Benveniste (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0154653).
As per claim 6, Kuroda discloses a communication control system (Kuroda: paragraphs 0040-0041 and fig. 2; the carrier data center is connected to the Internet through gateway 20-2. Each base is connected to the carrier data center by a virtual dedicated line(s) using MPLS lines…Thus, in the communicating system of the first exemplary embodiment, there are two Internet access routes from bases A and B: an MPLS line (MPLS network) through a carrier data center and a mobile line (mobile network)) comprising:
a plurality of communication control each housing at least one a user device (Kuroda: fig. 2 and paragraph 0037; Gateways 20-3 and 20-4 are gateways installed at the bases including the terminals, and are gateways connected to at least the MPLS line (first line) and the mobile line (second line)…paragraph 0040; Each base is connected to the carrier data center by a virtual dedicated line(s) using MPLS lines. Each base is also configured to be connected to the Internet through a mobile line (mobile network line) such as Long Term Evolution (LTE)…paragraph 0041; Thus, in the communicating system of the first exemplary embodiment, there are two Internet access routes from bases A and B: an MPLS line (MPLS network) through a carrier data center and a mobile line (mobile network)); and
a network system that provides connection service to the user device (Kuroda: paragraph 0040; the carrier data center is connected to the Internet through gateway 20-2. Each base is connected to the carrier data center by a virtual dedicated line(s) using MPLS lines. Each base is also configured to be connected to the Internet through a mobile line (mobile network line) such as Long Term Evolution (LTE)), wherein the network system is connected to each of the plurality of communication control devices via both a fixed communication network and a mobile communication network (Kuroda: fig. 2 and paragraph 0037; The gateway 20-3 and the gateway 20-4 are installed at the base including terminals. Gateways 20-3 and 20-4 are gateways installed at the bases including the terminals, and are gateways connected to at least the MPLS line (first line) (fixed communication) and the mobile line (second line) (mobile communication)…paragraph 0040; Each base is connected to the carrier data center by a virtual dedicated line(s) using MPLS lines. Each base is also configured to be connected to the Internet through a mobile line (mobile network line) such as Long Term Evolution (LTE)), the network system is connected to an external network (Kuroda: paragraph 0040 and fig. 2; the carrier data center is connected to the Internet through gateway 20-2), the network system causes the user device of each of the plurality of communication control devices to access the external network (Kuroda: paragraph 0041; there are two Internet access routes from bases A and B: an MPLS line (MPLS network) through a carrier data center and a mobile line (mobile network)…paragraph 0078; The gateway 20 processes (forwards) packets from the terminal. The controller 10 generates the processing rule so that the MPLS line(s) is used preferentially, so the packets sent by the terminal are forwarded to the MPLS line(s)) and the network system acquires degrees of congestion of the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network (paragraph 0056; A line status measuring part 204 is a means configured to measure a condition of a line connecting the carrier data center to the Internet…paragraph 0057; the line status measuring part 204 reads the bandwidth limit from the contract plan information of the Internet connection line of the carrier data center…paragraph 0058; the line status measuring part 204 calculates the currently used bandwidth (transmission rate) from the traffic information (statistical information) obtained from gateway 20-2, which is the gateway for the Internet side exit of the carrier data center…paragraph 0059; the line status measuring part 204 calculates a line congestion rate from the calculated bandwidth used and the bandwidth upper limit read out), and
each of the plurality of communication control devices (Kuroda: fig. 3 and paragraph 0044; the controller 10 comprises a communication control part 201…paragraph 0045; The communication controlling part 201 is a means configured to control communication with the gateway 20…fig. 1; controller 104) comprising:
processing circuitry (Kuroda: claim 1; A control apparatus in a mobile communication system including a terminal apparatus, the control apparatus comprising: at least one processor) configured to:
relay communication between the user device and the fixed communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0036; The gateway 20-1 is a gateway that is connected to a gateway 20-3 through an MPLS line (a first line)…paragraph 0037; The gateway 20-3 and the gateway 20-4 are installed at the base including terminals…paragraph 0078; packets sent by the terminal are forwarded to the MPLS line(s));
relay communication between the user device and the mobile communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0037; gateways connected to at least the MPLS line (first line) and the mobile line (second line));
select one of the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network based on the degrees of congestion acquired by the network system (Kuroda: paragraph 0085; the controller 10 calculates a plurality of indicators (a plurality of line congestion rates) in a predetermined period of time in the past, and controls the gateways 20 at each base based on the representative values of the plurality of said calculated indicators. The controller 10 also controls the line switching at the gateway 20 at each base so that packets transmitted from the terminal are forwarded from (via) the mobile line when it is determined that the line connecting the carrier data center to the Internet is tight…paragraph 0086; The controller 10 reads the processing rule(s) corresponding to the selected flows from the storing part 206, and changes the output port of the processing rule(s) from an MPLS line to a mobile line…paragraph 0059; the line status measuring part 204 calculates a line congestion rate from the calculated bandwidth used and the bandwidth upper limit read out); and
cause the user device to execute communication by using a communication network selected (Kuroda: paragraph 0062; When the representative value of the line congestion rate is above a predetermined value, the line managing part 205 determines that the line between the carrier data center and the Internet is tight (in congestion). When the line between the carrier data center and the Internet is tight, the line managing part 205 offloads a portion of data (packets) transferred to the Internet through the MPLS line to the mobile line).
Kuroda teaches acquiring congestion information of the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network based on bandwidth (see at least paragraph 0056; A line status measuring part 204 is a means configured to measure a condition of a line connecting the carrier data center to the Internet…paragraph 0057; the line status measuring part 204 reads the bandwidth limit from the contract plan information of the Internet connection line of the carrier data center…paragraph 0058; the line status measuring part 204 calculates the currently used bandwidth (transmission rate) from the traffic information (statistical information) obtained from gateway 20-2, which is the gateway for the Internet side exit of the carrier data center…paragraph 0059; the line status measuring part 204 calculates a line congestion rate from the calculated bandwidth used and the bandwidth upper limit read out).
However Kuroda does not explicitly mention acquires degrees of congestion based on success or failure of transmissions in the communication network.
However Benveniste teaches:
acquires degrees of congestion based on success or failure of transmissions in the communication network (Benveniste: paragraph 0041; Congestion estimates are derived from data that include: feedback on the success or failure of a transmission attempt).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Benveniste with the teachings as in Kuroda. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to maintain low latency and jitter by improving congestion estimation (Benveniste: paragraph 0010).
As per claim 8, the modified Kuroda teaches the communication control system according to claim 6, wherein the degrees of congestion are acquired using Ping messages (Kuroda: paragraph 0145; Ping measurements may be performed from the gateway 20 at each location to the destination server through the MPLS line and the mobile line, respectively, and the line may be switched-over according to the results of the measurements. For example, if the Ping measurement results show that the round trip time (RTT) of the mobile line is of a higher quality (RTT is shorter) than the MPLS line, a decision may be made to offload to the mobile line…paragraph 0146; the following information may be used to instruct the gateway 20 to make a line switching decision: In a case where it is determined that the Internet connection line is disconnected. In a case where information indicating congestion is set in packets coming from a service server (e.g., a cloud service server). Note, the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) specified in RFC 3168 can be used as information to indicate congestion).
As per claim 10, the modified Kuroda teaches the communication control system according to claim 6, wherein the communication control device is a router (Kuroda: paragraph 0038; The gateway 20 is an SD-WAN gateway (SD-WAN router) that is controlled by a controller 10).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS], in view of Benveniste (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0154653), and further in view of Menon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0409323).
As per claim 7, the modified Kuroda teaches the communication control system according to claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit a packet transmitted from the user device to the fixed communication network or the mobile communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0151; the controller controls line switching at the first gateway to transfer part of packet determined the line switching at the first gateway is controlled so that a portion of the packets sent from the terminal are forwarded from the second line when it is determined that the first line is tight).
However the modified Kuroda does not explicitly mention transmitting packets without tunneling.
However Menon teaches:
transmitting packets without tunneling (Menon: paragraph 0061; enable the extension of an L2 network across an L3 network without the use of tunnels or packet encapsulation. For example, the use of the first portion of metadata to specify L2 address information obviates the need to use tunnels, such as GRE).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Menon with the teachings as in the modified Kuroda. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to eliminate the overhead associated with the use of tunnels and/or encapsulation, thereby improving efficiency, reducing latency, and conserving network resource (Menon: paragraph 0061).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS], in view of Benveniste (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0154653), and further in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0313366).
As per claim 9, the modified Kuroda teaches the communication control system according to claim 6.
However the modified Kuroda does not explicitly mention wherein the fixed communication network includes an optical network and the user device is an optical network unit.
However Nakamura teaches:
wherein the fixed communication network includes an optical network and the user device is an optical network unit (Nakamura: paragraph 0054 and fig. 1; The fixed access network 16 uses a Passive Optical Network (PON) as an access facility and includes an Optical Line Terminal (OLT) 9 and an Optical Network Unit (ONU) 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Nakamura with the teachings as in the modified Kuroda. The motivation for doing so would have been to introduce the same architecture into a fixed network in order to establish an access-independent service network (Nakamura: paragraph 0008).
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 KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights