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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliott, US Pub. No.20140003358.
As to claim 1, Elliott discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a first edge device (108 fig.1) that maintains a first DIA connection, an advertisement message from a second device (104 fig.1), the advertisement message including information about a current status of at least one second Direct Internet Access (DIA) connection accessible from the second device (the UE 104 may be able to access the remote server 116 via a cellular interface and/or a wireless local area network including DIA connections, see fig.1, [0017] and [0033]),
updating, by the first edge device, a local routing table to include the information
about the current status of the at least one second DIA connection and receiving, by the first edge device, network traffic to be routed over an external network (monitoring the current and/or available interfaces and dynamically update the route table as conditions change, see [0037]),
upon determining that the first DIA connection is unavailable, selecting, by the first
edge device, the at least one second DIA connection based on the information in the local routing table and forwarding, by the first edge device, the network traffic to the second device (if the available WLAN interface does not meet the QoE threshold, then the cellular interface may be prioritized over the WLAN interface and/or the ongoing flow may remain on the cellular interface, see [0035] to [0037]).
As to claim 2, Elliott discloses the second device comprises a second edge device operating on a Local Access Network (LAN) that the first edge device is operating on (WLAN, see [0035]).
As to claim 4, Elliott discloses determining a cost associated with the at least one second DIA connection, wherein the selecting the at least one second DIA
connection is based at least in part on the cost (economic costs, see [0038]).
As to claim 5, Elliott discloses the cost is determined based at least in part on a path between the first edge device and the second device (see [0038] to [0039]).
As to claim 6, Elliott discloses the local routing table comprises a number of entries, individual entries associated with a DIA connection (updating routing tables, see [0037])
As to claim 7, Elliott discloses a number of entries stored in the local routing table are ordered based on a respective cost associated with individual entries in the number
of entries (see [038] to [0039]).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
As to claim 9, Elliott discloses the edge device provides ingress/egress to a Local Area Network (LAN) (see [0038]).
As to claim 10, Elliott discloses the network traffic originates from a computing device operating on the LAN (see [0035]).
As to claim 11, Elliott discloses the second device comprises a second edge device operating on the LAN (see [0035]).
As to claim 12, Elliott discloses the information about the current status comprises an indication as to whether the DIA connection is available or unavailable (availability status, see [0041] to [0042]).
As to claim 13, Elliott discloses the external network comprises the Internet (see [0038]).
As to claim 14, Elliott discloses determining a cost associated with the at least one second DIA connection, wherein the selecting the at least one second DIA connection is based at least in part on the cost (cost processing, see service costs, see [0041]).
As to claim 15, Elliott discloses the cost is determined based at least in part on a path between the first edge device and the second device (see [0038]).
As to claim 16, Elliott discloses the local routing table comprises a number of entries, individual entries associated with a DIA connection (routing tables, see [0043]).
As to claim 17, Elliott discloses a system comprising:
a first edge device configured to: monitor a current status of a Direct Internet Access (DIA) connection and upon detecting a change in the current status of the DIA connection, provide an advertisement message to a second edge device that includes information about the current status (the UE 104 may be able to access the remote server 116 via a cellular interface and/or a wireless local area network including DIA connections, see fig.1, [0017] and [0033]),
and
the second edge device configured to:
receive the advertisement message from the first edge device and update a local routing table to include the information about the current status (monitoring the current and/or available interfaces and dynamically update the route table as conditions change, see [0037]),
upon receiving network traffic directed to an external network, select the DIA
connection based on the local routing table and route the network traffic to the first edge device (if the available WLAN interface does not meet the QoE threshold, then the cellular interface may be prioritized over the WLAN interface and/or the ongoing flow may remain on the cellular interface, see [0035] to [0037]).
As to claim 18, Elliott discloses both the first edge device and the second edge
device are operating on a Local Area Network (LAN) (see [0038]).
As to claim 19, Elliott discloses the first edge device is further configured to:
receive a second advertisement message from a hub device, the second advertisement
message including information about a status of a second DIA connection maintained by the hub device and provide a third advertisement message to the second edge device that includes the information about the status of the second DIA connection (see [0043] to [0044]).
As to claim 20, Elliott discloses the second edge device is further configured
to: receive the third advertisement message from the first edge device and
update the local routing table to include the information about the status of the second
DIA connection, wherein the local routing table indicates that the second DIA connection is accessible through the first edge device (availability status, see [0041] to [0042]).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott as in above and in view of Konda et al, US Pub. No.20220321528.
As to claim 3, Elliott’s teachings still applied as in above. However, Elliott does not specifically disclose a hub device operating within a SD-WAN fabric. However, Konda discloses using a hub device operating within a SD-WAN fabric (see [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Konda’s teachings into the computer system of Elliott to control data information because it would have securely provided the certificate and key pair to the router using a secure communication mechanism (see Konda’s [0077]).
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights