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
This action is responsive to the application filed on March 05, 2025. Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on March 05, 2025 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12255796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As shown in the following table, independent claims may be worded differently, however, the subject matters are essentially same.
Differences between the claims are indicated in italics, and subject matter which is worded differently, but recites the same or similar concepts are shown in bold. It should be noted that when differences are shown in italics, the instant claims have been recited in a broader manner, leaving out some details of the steps. Sometimes two of the instant claims together are the same subject matter of one of the patent claims, or the opposite is true. Finally, the underlining indicates that the limitation is found in the instant application and the patented application.
Instant Application No. 19/071,417
US Patent No. 12255796
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
measuring, at a gateway, a network speed provided by a first network source to a user device executing an application, wherein the network speed includes a first data transfer rate;
determining that the network speed is below a threshold while the user device executes the application;
in response to the network speed being below the threshold, identifying a second network source to combine with the first network source to increase the network speed;
combining, at the gateway, the first network source with the second network source to provide the user device with a second data transfer rate;
determining a usage threshold for the second network source based on a usage subscription associated with the second network source; and disconnecting the second network source from the gateway based on a usage amount of the second network source reaching the usage threshold.
Claim 1:
A method for selecting a secondary network source at a gateway, the method comprising:
measuring, at the gateway, a network speed provided by a first network source to a user device executing an application, wherein the network speed includes a first data transfer rate;
determining that the network speed is below a quality threshold while the user device executes the application;
determining the application is active on the user device for a time threshold;
in response to the network speed being below the quality threshold and the application being active for the time threshold, identifying a second network source to combine with the first network source to increase the network speed, by:
selecting the second network source based on metadata associated with network usage of the application, detecting a device connected to the second network source is within a proximity of the gateway, and
determining the second network source is authorized to be combined with the first network source based on an authentication trigger associated with the device within the proximity of the gateway;
combining, at the gateway, the first network source with the second network source to provide the user device with a second data transfer rate;
determining a usage threshold for the second network source based on a usage subscription associated with the second network source; and disconnecting the second network source from the gateway based on a usage amount of the second network source reaching the usage threshold.
Claim 2:
further comprising: determining the application is active on the user device for a time threshold; and in response to the network speed being below the threshold and the application being active for the time threshold, identifying the second network source.
Claim 2:
further comprising: identifying the second network source based on the application executing on the user device.
Part of claim 1:
determining the application is active on the user device for a time threshold;
Claim 3:
further comprising: detecting a device connected to the second network source is within a proximity of the gateway; and determining the second network source is authorized to be combined with the first network source based on an authentication trigger associated with the device within the proximity of the gateway.
Part of claim 1:
selecting the second network source based on metadata associated with network usage of the application, detecting a device connected to the second network source is within a proximity of the gateway, and
determining the second network source is authorized to be combined with the first network source based on an authentication trigger associated with the device within the proximity of the gateway;
Claim 4:
further comprising: receiving, from a user interface, a request for an increased network speed; and sending a notification to the user interface with instructions to receive the increased network speed.
Claim 4:
further comprising: receiving, from a user interface, a request for an increased network speed; and sending a notification to the user interface with instructions for a user to perform for the increased network speed.
Claim 5:
further comprising: identifying the second network source based on the application executing on the user device.
Claim 2:
further comprising: identifying the second network source based on the application executing on the user device.
Claim 6:
wherein the second network source is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with a past identification of secondary network sources.
Claim 5:
wherein the second network source is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with a past identification of secondary network sources.
Claim 7:
wherein the threshold is selected by the user device for the application or is predetermined based on a network subscription package associated with the user device.
Claim 7:
wherein the quality threshold is selected by a user for the application or is predetermined based on a network subscription package of the user.
Claim 8:
Similar to claim 1.
Claim 9:
Similar to claim 2.
Claim 10:
Similar to claim 3.
Claim 11:
Similar to claim 4.
Claim 12:
Similar to claim 5.
Claim 13:
Similar to claim 6.
Claim 14:
Similar to claim 7.
Claim 15:
Similar to claim 1.
Claim 16:
Similar to claim 2.
Claim 17:
Similar to claim 3.
Claim 18:
Similar to claim 4.
Claim 19:
Similar to claim 5.
Claim 20:
Similar to claims 6 and 7.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viox et al. (US PGPUB No. 20180351844), hereinafter, Viox, in view of Levine et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20170026817 A1), hereinafter, Levine.
Regarding claim 1:
Viox teaches:
A method comprising:
measuring, at a gateway, a network speed provided by a first network source to a user device executing an application, wherein the network speed includes a first data transfer rate (paragraph 0034, lines 2-9, discloses the gateway apparatus measuring bandwidth (network speed) consumption of a user (user device) provided by a first network (first network source) wherein the bandwidth consumption includes the amount of data being transferred in a certain amount of time (first data transfer rate) as stated “in an aspect, at step 222, gateway apparatus 200 may monitor the user's desired bandwidth (e.g., the user's bandwidth needs). For example, gateway apparatus 200 may monitor the user's bandwidth consumption. By way of example, gateway apparatus 200 may monitor the first network on the application layer, continuously registering the amount of data being transferred in a certain amount of time”. .Paragraph 0036, lines 1-5, also discloses execution of high-bandwidth consuming application like an online gaming application);
determining that the network speed is below a threshold while the user device executes the application (paragraph 0036, lines 1-5, discloses determining first network speed is below user’s desired bandwidth (quality threshold) as stated “In a high bandwidth consumption scenario (e.g., online gaming, video chat, streaming video, or the like), at step 223, gateway apparatus 200 may detect the need for increased bandwidth (e.g., determine that the user's desired bandwidth is greater than the first network bandwidth)”);
in response to the network speed being below the threshold, identifying a second network source to combine with the first network source to increase the network speed (paragraph 0036, lines 5-7, discloses identifying a second network (second network source) “At step 224, gateway apparatus 200 may check to determine whether the connection to the second network is active.”. Paragraph 0034, lines 6-9, and paragraph 0036, lines 1-5, disclose the second network is identified in response to the bandwidth on the first network is below the user’s desired bandwidth and the application continuously registering data for the certain amount of time.);
combining, at the gateway, the first network source with the second network source to provide the user device with a second data transfer rate (paragraph 0039, lines 1-8, discloses the gateway apparatus combines the first network and the second network to provide the user desired bandwidth (second data transfer rate) as stated “If the second network has available bandwidth to be used, at step 228, the gateway apparatus 200 may use the first network bandwidth and at least a portion of the second network available bandwidth to provide the user the desired bandwidth. By way of example, gateway apparatus 200 may aggregate the first network bandwidth with at least a portion of the second network bandwidth to provide the user the desired bandwidth.”);
Viox does not teach determining a usage threshold for the second network source based on a usage subscription associated with the second network source; and disconnecting the second network source from the gateway based on a usage amount of the second network source reaching the usage threshold.
Levine teaches determining a usage threshold for the second network source based on a usage subscription associated with the second network source; and disconnecting the second network source from the gateway based on a usage amount of the second network source reaching the usage threshold (paragraph 0085 discloses terminating connection to a carrier after usage reached a predetermined usage threshold as stated “Based on the usage data collected, the policy management platform 12 may determine 114 whether a magnitude of data usage from any or all carriers 300 and/or networks has exceeded a predetermined maximum value. If not, then the policy management platform 12 may continue to receive 110 usage data from any network 300. If the predetermined maximum value has been exceeded, however, the policy management platform 12 or MVNO DOMAIN 40 may determine 116 whether to terminate usage. Usage termination can include all wireless devices 10 associated with the MVNO account or any combination of wireless devices 10 associated with the MVNO account”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Viox to incorporate the teaching of Levine about terminating connection to a carrier after usage reached a predetermined usage threshold. One would be motivated to do that to increase the profitability of provider by tacking usage and disconnecting when the usage exceeds the predetermined threshold (see paragraph 0032 of Levine).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Viox in view of Levine teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox further teaches further comprising: determining the application is active on the user device for a time threshold; and in response to the network speed being below the threshold and the application being active for the time threshold, identifying the second network source (paragraph 0034, lines 6-9, discloses determining the application layer is continuously registering data (application is active) for a certain amount of time (time threshold) as stated “By way of example, gateway apparatus 200 may monitor the first network on the application layer, continuously registering the amount of data being transferred in a certain amount of time.”. Continuously registering data indicates the application, for example the online gaming application as disclosed in paragraph 0036, lines 1-5, is active for the certain amount of time. Paragraph 0034, lines 6-9, and paragraph 0036, lines 1-5, disclose the second network is identified in response to the bandwidth on the first network is below the user’s desired bandwidth and the application continuously registering data for the certain amount of time.).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Viox in view of Levine teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox further teaches further comprising: identifying the second network source based on the application executing on the user device (paragraph 0036 discloses identifying the second network based on online gaming application executing by the user as stated “In a high bandwidth consumption scenario (e.g., online gaming, video chat, streaming video, or the like), at step 223, gateway apparatus 200 may detect the need for increased bandwidth (e.g., determine that the user's desired bandwidth is greater than the first network bandwidth). At step 224, gateway apparatus 200 may check to determine whether the connection to the second network is active”).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Viox in view of Levine teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox further teaches wherein the threshold is selected by the user device for the application or is predetermined based on a network subscription package associated with the user device (paragraph 0020 discloses the threshold is determined the application, for example, the HD video steaming requires bandwidth threshold of 6-8 Mbps. Also see paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system performing the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable performing the method of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable performing the method of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viox in view of Levine and further in view of Jiao et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20220311481 A1), hereinafter, Jiao.
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Viox in view of Levine teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox does not teach further comprising: detecting a device connected to the second network source is within a proximity of the gateway; and determining the second network source is authorized to be combined with the first network source based on an authentication trigger associated with the device within the proximity of the gateway.
Jiao teaches:
further comprising: detecting a device connected to the second network source is within a proximity of the gateway (Fig .1 shows a client device can reach the Internet through a gateway device 100 via a first network provided by an operator or a second network provided by a mobile device 200 (device). paragraph 0047, lines 1-6, checking (detecting) if the mobile device 200 (device) with backup internet service activated i.e., connected to backup internet service as stated “In Step S6, the gateway/access point device 100 checks if the mobile device 200 (i.e., the device for which “Backup Internet” service has been activated) is connected to the gateway/access point device 100 and if so, sends a creation request to the mobile device 200 to create a hotspot for the client device 300.”. paragraph 0018 discloses the connection between the gateway device 100 and the mobile device 200 can be the Bluetooth protocol. Since the Bluetooth protocol is a short-range protocol, the mobile device 200 is within a proximity of the gateway device 100); and
determining the second network source is authorized to be combined with the first network source based on an authentication trigger associated with the device within the proximity of the gateway (paragraph 0048 discloses whether the backup internet service can be used for creating hotspot based on the user feedback (authentication trigger) on the mobile device 200 in response to a prompt sent by the gateway device 100); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Voix to incorporate the teaching of Jiao about identifying the mobile device 200 with hotspot and the determining authorization for using the hotspot. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Viox’s gateway apparatus to implement the determining authorization steps before combining. One would be motivated to do that to allow/disallow using the second network source/backup internet based on the usage limit or byte cap (see paragraphs and 0003 and 0048 of Jiao).
Claim 10 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable performing the method of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viox in view of Levine and further in view of Cook (US PGPUB No. US 20150172217 A1), hereinafter, Cook.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. . Viox in view of Levine teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox does not teach further comprising: receiving, from a user interface, a request for an increased network speed; and sending a notification to the user interface with instructions to receive the increased network speed.
Cook teaches further comprising: receiving, from a user interface, a request for an increased network speed; sending a notification to the user interface with instructions to receive the increased network speed (paragraph 0079 discloses receiving user input in the user interface for additional bandwidth as stated “For example, in some cases, the subscriber might be able to access the user interface to request services modifications on a temporary basis (e.g., to request additional bandwidth on a temporary basis to accommodate a large anticipated download, etc.)”. Paragraph 0081 discloses user interface provides interaction between the user and the computer system and displays allocated resources for user request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Voix to incorporate the teaching of cook about requesting additional bandwidth. One would be motivated to do that to support high bandwidth consuming application (see at least paragraph 0020 of Voix).
Claim 11 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable performing the method of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viox in view of Levine and further in view of Karimli et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20190053114 A1), hereinafter, Karimli.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. . Viox in view of Levine teach all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Viox does not teach wherein the second network source is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with a past identification of secondary network sources.
Karimli teaches wherein the second network source is identified by at least one machine-learning algorithm, wherein the at least one machine-learning algorithm is trained based on at least one dataset associated with a past identification of secondary network sources (see at least paragraph 0055 disclosing identification of a network using machine learning mechanism based on past usage pattern as stated “The training module 240 can leverage a machine learning mechanism to build and/or modify a data model that can be utilized to make predictions or decisions as to which network, of two or more available networks, is a preferred network for the user. That is, the machine learning mechanism can train a data model to identify usage patterns in user behavior and the data model can analyze contextual data to output a recommendation based on the identified usage patterns”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Voix to incorporate the teaching of Karimli about using machine learning mechanism. One would be motivated to use the machine learning machine mechanism to identify alternate network that can meet user need for best user experiences (see at least the Abstract and paragraph 0001 of Karimli).
Claim 13 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable performing the methods of claims 6 and 7. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
June 18, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights