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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13 are drawn to establishing first and second connections via first and second radio frequency interfaces respectively as well as “determine a result representing whether data is routed for the first connection or the second connection”, classified in H04L63/20.
II. Claims 14-18 are drawn to “determine a computing task to be offloaded to the peer device based on the information”, classified in H04L67/1001.
III. Claims 19-20 are drawn to “select an operating state for the access node from a plurality of operating states comprising the state based on environmental conditions with a production of the renewable energy”, classified in H04B17/318.
The inventions are unrelated and distinct from each other. Inventions are unrelated if it
can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and have different designs,
modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and§ 806.06).
As shown in Groups I and II above, the different inventions I and II have different
systems that will require different operation.
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above, there
would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions
require different operations and different fields of search (see MPEP § 808.02), restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the
inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CPR 1.48(b) if one or more of the
currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the
application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CPR
1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CPR 1. l 7(i).
During a telephone conversation with attorney Benjamin L. von Rueden (Reg. No. 74,693) on August 20, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soma (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0131869).
Soma teaches an apparatus of a communication device (see Figure 1, paragraph [0023], disclose an information handling system (HIS) 100. Said HIS may include an aggregate of instrumentalities operable to perform several functions, please see paragraph [0023]), the apparatus comprising a memory (see Figure 1, memory 112), and a processor (see Figure 1, CPU(s) 102) configured to:
establish a first connection via a first radio frequency interface (see paragraph [0037], disclose managing the transmission of data over physical interfaces such as first wireless connection (e.g., a 5 GHz Wi-Fi connection) and 3G/4G/5G cellular connections);
establish a second connection via a second radio frequency interface (paragraph [0037], disclose managing the transmission of data over physical interfaces such as second wireless connection (e.g., 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi connection) and a wired network connection), wherein the first connection is a non-secure connection (see paragraph [0037], for example 3G/4G/5G connections may be designated as low security connections) and the second connection is a secure connection (see paragraph [0037], while some Wi-Fi networks may be designated as high security connections based on AP name);
determine a result representing whether data is routed for the first connection or the second connection (see Figure 3, paragraph [0044], the connection assignment indicator (CAI) determines a network connection based on application priority and security levels of the to-be transmitted data. For example, if the security level indicates the packet P is secure, then any of the available secure connections may be used to transmit the packet P, please see paragraph [0044]. Likewise, if the packet P is unsecure then any of the unsecure network connections may be used to transmit packet P, please see paragraph [0045]);
and instruct the data to be transmitted with one of the first connection or the second connection based on the result (see Figure 6, steps 606, 608, 620 and paragraphs [0044], [0046], if the received packet P is determined to be secure, then the CAI assigns the secure packet P to any of the available secure connections for transmission. Likewise, if the received packet P is determined to be unsecure, then the CAI assigns the unsecure packet P to any of the unsecure connections for transmission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Buhari (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0039664).
As per claim 2:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the first connection is one connection of a dual radio connection in accordance with an IEEE 802.11 communication protocol;
and wherein the second connection is another connection of the dual radio connection in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 communication protocol.
Buhari teaches wherein the first connection is one connection of a dual radio connection in accordance with an IEEE 802.11 communication protocol (see paragraph [0049], the respective connections can be single link, multilink or dual link connections. The respective communication devices operate according to IEEE 802.11 standards);
and wherein the second connection is another connection of the dual radio connection in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 communication protocol (see paragraph [0049], the respective connections can be single link, multilink or dual link connections. The respective communication devices operate according to IEEE 802.11 standards).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of network connections (as disclosed in in Buhari) into Soma as a way of enhancing connection security as well as reducing the time reestablish a connection (please see paragraph [0016] of Buhari).
5. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Roychoudhury (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0205573).
As per claim 3:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the first connection is associated with a first internet protocol (IP) address and the second connection is associated with a second IP address different from the first IP address.
Roychoudhury teaches wherein the first connection is associated with a first internet protocol (IP) address and the second connection is associated with a second IP address different from the first IP address (see paragraph [0119], a network packet may be intended to be transmitted to one IP address over a non-secure channel and it may be desirable to transmit the network packet to another IP address over a secure channel. Thus, it is evident that the non-secure channel is associated with an IP address different from IP address associated with the secure channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to redirection or transmission of packet at a different address (as disclosed in Roychoudhury) into Soma especially since the different IP address provides content without malicious components (please see paragraphs [0121]-[0122] of Roychoudhury).
As per claim 4:
Soma in view of Roychoudhury teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Soma does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to route the data for the first connection or the second connection based on an IP address included in the data.
Roychoudhury teaches wherein the processor is further configured to route the data for the first connection or the second connection based on an IP address included in the data (see paragraph [0119], a network packet may be intended to be transmitted to one IP address over a non-secure channel and it may be desirable to transmit the network packet to another IP address over a secure channel. Thus, it is evident that the non-secure channel is associated with an IP address different from IP address associated with the secure channel).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to redirection or transmission of packet at a different address (as disclosed in Roychoudhury) into Soma especially since the different IP address provides content without malicious components (please see paragraphs [0121]-[0122] of Roychoudhury).
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Mahaffey (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0128205).
As per claim 5:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the second connection is established with an IEEE 802.11 Access Point (AP) and comprises a virtual private network (VPN) connection.
Mahaffey teaches wherein the second connection is established with an IEEE 802.11 Access Point (AP) and comprises a virtual private network (VPN) connection (see paragraph [0101], disclose a VPN connection may be established between user and the Wi-Fi access point. Paragraph [0087] disclose wireless network employ Wi-Fi standards such as IEEE 802.11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of VPN connection between user and the Wi-Fi access point (as disclosed in Mahaffey) into Soma as a way of preserving the privacy and security of information being communicated (please see paragraph [0101] of Mahaffey). Thus, implementing secure network connection helps to prevent external attacks such as eavesdropping, snooping and other unsavory acts (please see paragraphs [0003]-[0004] of Mahaffey).
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Azizi (US Patent No. 8,594,632).
As per claim 6:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1with the exception of:
wherein the first connection is a device to device (D2D) connection established with a further IEEE 802.11 terminal device.
Azizi teaches wherein the first connection is a device to device (D2D) connection established with a further IEEE 802.11 terminal device (see Col 4, lines 4-16, mobile device 104A performs a broadcast of a discovery message via a wireless communication medium (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 P2P network broadcast)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the transmission of discovery message via a P2P network broadcast (as disclosed in Azizi) into Soma as a way of enabling the communication device to locate and exchange D2DE authentication data with other nearby communication devices (see Col 4, lines 10-16 of Azizi).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Manapragada (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0074051).
As per claim 7:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the data comprises an application layer data;
wherein the processor is configured to route the application layer data within an IEEE 802.11 protocol stack to instruct the data to be transmitted with one of the first connection or the second connection.
Manapragada teaches wherein the data comprises an application layer data (see paragraph [0090], the datastream is directed to the individual proper processing unit for suitable channels and the datastream is passed to the application layer 801 for further packaging and to PHY layer 803 for transmission);
wherein the processor is configured to route the application layer data within an IEEE 802.11 protocol stack to instruct the data to be transmitted with one of the first connection or the second connection (see paragraph [0090], the datastream is passed through application layer 801 and PHY layer 803 for transmission. The receiver would receive the wirelessly transmitted digital signals and conduct the reverse-processing of the signal by an embedded processing unit 807, 805 and 809. Paragraph [0073] also disclose network 100 is IEEE 802.11 compliant).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the generation and transmission of data stream via protocol stacks such as application layer and physical layer (as disclosed in Manapragada) into Soma as a way of preventing packet loss by dynamically assigning the data stream to the channels of good performance (please see paragraph [0090] of Manapragada).
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Hebbar (US Patent No. 9,912,699).
As per claim 8:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the result based on a parameter of an application layer-software generating the data, wherein the parameter indicates whether the data is for the secure connection or for the non-secure connection.
Hebbar teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the result based on a parameter of an application layer-software generating the data, wherein the parameter indicates whether the data is for the secure connection or for the non-secure connection (see Col 4, lines 14-34, after exchanging the IKE message, both the peer and network device may send encrypted/unencrypted network traffic over the assigned network. The network traffic is routed based on associated application layer information, please see Col 4, lines 14-34).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the forwarding of traffic over a connection based on security policy (as disclosed in Hebbar) into Soma as a way of providing level of protection to applications (see Col 2, lines 40-57 of Hebbar).
10. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Balasooriya (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0181359).
As per claim 9:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the data is to be transmitted to an IEEE 802.11 device;
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a location of the IEEE 802.11 device;
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the result based on the location of the IEEE 802.11 device.
Balasooriya teaches wherein the data is to be transmitted to an IEEE 802.11 device (paragraph [0064] disclose communication interface 214 supports transmission and reception of beacon signals. Said communication interface 214 configured to operate in accordance with any suitable protocol(s) such as IEEE 802.11 wireless communications);
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a location of the IEEE 802.11 device (see paragraphs [0034]-[0035], in response to receiving signal 104a from the beacon transmitter 102a, the receiver device 104 may analyze the data (comprising information such as current configuration settings, RSSI values, asset identification information, location of the scanning device etc.) and then establish connections 104b, 104c with the scanning device);
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the result based on the location of the IEEE 802.11 device (see paragraph [0035], based on the analyzed data, the receiver device 104 may establish connections 104b, 104c with the scanning device 102).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of connection between devices based on the analyzed data (as disclosed in Balasooriya) into Soma as a way of establishing connections that accommodates the size of file transfers (please see paragraph [0047] of Balasooriya).
As per claim 10:
Soma in view of Balasooriya teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Soma does not teach wherein if the IEEE 802.11 device is located at a distance within a distance range, the processor is configured to instruct the data to be transmitted using the first connection.
Balasooriya teaches wherein if the IEEE 802.11 device is located at a distance within a distance range, the processor is configured to instruct the data to be transmitted using the first connection (see paragraph [0034), the receiver device 104 may receive the signal 104a when it is within the transmission range of the signal 104a or proximate to the scanning device 102. In response to receiving the signal 104a, the receiver device 104 may establish connections 104b, 104c).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of connection between devices based on the analyzed data (as disclosed in Balasooriya) into Soma as a way of establishing connections that accommodates the size of file transfers (please see paragraph [0047] of Balasooriya).
As per claim 11:
Soma in view of Balasooriya teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Soma does not clearly teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device based on radio communication signals received from the IEEE 802.11 device; wherein the processor is further configured to identify a service set identifier (SSID) within data packets received with the radio communication signals received from the IEEE 802.11 device to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device.
Balasooriya teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device based on radio communication signals received from the IEEE 802.11 device (see paragraph [0035], the receiver device in response to receiving signal 104a may determine the location of the scanning device);
wherein the processor is further configured to identify a service set identifier (SSID) within data packets received with the radio communication signals received from the IEEE 802.11 device to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device (see paragraph [0034], said signal 104a comprise of information such as RSSI values, asset identification information and current configuration settings).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of connection between devices based on the analyzed data (as disclosed in Balasooriya) into Soma as a way of establishing connections that accommodates the size of file transfers (please see paragraph [0047] of Balasooriya).
As per claim 12:
Soma in view of Balasooriya teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Soma does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) level of received radio communication signals.
Balasooriya teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the location of the IEEE 802.11 device based on a receive signal strength indicator (RSSI) level of received radio communication signals (see paragraph [0035], in response to analyzing the data in received signal 104a, the receiver device 103 may determine location of the scanning device. Said data in received signal 104a includes, RSSI and asset identification information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the establishment of connection between devices based on the analyzed data (as disclosed in Balasooriya) into Soma as a way of establishing connections that accommodates the size of file transfers (please see paragraph [0047] of Balasooriya).
11. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soma in view of Thakur (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0361802).
As per claim 13:
Soma teaches the apparatus of claim 1 with the exception of:
further comprising: the first radio frequency interface configured to communicate with a first IEEE 802.11 radio unit of the IEEE 802.11 terminal device;
the second radio frequency interface configured to communicate with a second IEEE 802.11 radio unit of the IEEE 802.11 terminal device.
Thakur teaches further comprising: the first radio frequency interface configured to communicate with a first IEEE 802.11 radio unit of the IEEE 802.11 terminal device (see paragraph [0223], a first RF signal interface 27-1. The RF FE circuitries operate according to 802.11 standard);
the second radio frequency interface configured to communicate with a second IEEE 802.11 radio unit of the IEEE 802.11 terminal device (see paragraph [0223], second RF signal interface 27-2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the use of more than one communication interface (as disclosed in Thakur) into Soma as a way of forming a multiport structure used when utilizing an antenna array (please see paragraph [0152] of Thakur).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH
Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights