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 1-7 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of Foreign of Application No. JP2023-033234 filed 03/03/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error in line 2. The claim states “…storing therein an a communication control program…”. The extra article “an” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS].
As per claim 1, Kuroda discloses a communication control device (Kuroda: 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)) comprising:
processing circuitry (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) configured to: relay communication between a user device that is housed and a 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 a mobile communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0037; gateways connected to at least the MPLS line (first line) and the mobile line (second line));
acquire a degree of congestion of at least one of the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network (Kuroda: 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);
select one of the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network based on the degree of congestion (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); 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).
As per claim 3, Kuroda teaches the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire degrees of congestion of both the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0059; the line status measuring part 204 calculates the used bandwidth by dividing the number of transfer bytes transmitted from the gateway 20-2 by the transmission interval of the statistical information. Next, the line status measuring part 204 calculates a line congestion rate from the calculated bandwidth used and the bandwidth upper limit read out…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)), and select a communication network having a smaller degree of congestion from the fixed communication network and the mobile communication network (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…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…paragraph 0086; changes the output port of the processing rule(s) from an MPLS line to a mobile line).
With respect to claim 4, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Kuroda also teaches a communication control method to be executed by a communication control device comprising: processing circuitry (Kuroda: paragraph 0160; A communicating method performed in a communicating system comprising: a first gateway installed at a base containing a terminal(s), and is connected to at least a first line and a second line…fig. 1; controller 104).
With respect to claim 5, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Kuroda also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing therein an a communication control program that causes a communication control device (Kuroda: paragraph 0171; A program for causing a computer to execute processings set forth below; the computer comprising: a first gateway installed at a base containing a terminal and connected to at least a first and second line…The program can be stored on a computer-readable storage medium. The storage medium can be non-transient).
With respect to claim 6, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Kuroda also teaches a communication control system (Kuroda: paragraph 0149; A communicating system comprising: a first gateway that is installed at a base containing a terminal, being connected to at least a first line and a second line…a controller that controls the first, the second, and the third gateways).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS] in view of Wahid et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0064577).
As per claim 2, Kuroda teaches the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit a packet transmitted from the user device to the fixed communication network (Kuroda: paragraph 0078; 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)).
However Kuroda does not explicitly mention when transmission of the packet fails, select the mobile communication network.
However Wahid teaches:
when transmission of the packet fails, select the mobile communication network (Wahid: paragraph 0070; failover to the cellular network when there is a failure of wired connections along with throttling of traffic, via the cloud service 40).
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 Wahid with the teachings as in Kuroda. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to support failover to the wireless broadband in the case of a wired broadband failure, providing reliability, uptime, and high service level agreement (SLA) support (Wahid: paragraph 0001).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0274383) [Applicant’s IDS] in view of Menon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0409323).
As per claim 7, Kuroda discloses 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 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 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).
Conclusion
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