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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election of Species
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
I. “an example” (¶ 82), as in claims 2, 8, and 10
II. “an example” (¶ 83), as in claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, from the first set of species and to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, from the second set of species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1, 5-9, and 13-17 appear generic. There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because the species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter or the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) or 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Upon cancellation of claims to a non-elected species, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Nidhi Bansal on June 24, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the generic claims and claims of species II. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2, 8, and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention or species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 20, the relation between the claimed correspondence and corresponds, e.g., whether these are the same or different and how one can be based on the other, is unclear.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, it is unclear how services like load balancing can be equal to a quantity. Also, the reference point for “least load” is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210184931 (Yao) in view of WO 2020063086 (He) further in view of US 20140040493 (Baldwin).
Yao teaches or suggests an apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein when executed by the one or more processors (¶¶ 38-40) the instructions cause the apparatus to:
receive, from an edge gateway via a first communication link, an access request (¶ 69);
send, to the edge gateway, link establishment information to indicate the edge gateway to establish second communication links with the data transmission apparatus (¶ 71); and
perform data transmission with the edge gateway over the first communication link and the second communication links (¶ 88).
Yao does not expressly disclose but He teaches or suggests a multi-link access request (step 405 description, Fig. 7D feasible design description);
determine, based on a first quantity, a second quantity of second communication links to be established with the edge gateway (step 412 description, Fig. 7D feasible design description);
obtain link establishment information corresponding to the second quantity (step 412 description, Fig. 7D feasible design description);
send the link establishment information to indicate .to establish the second communication links with the data transmission apparatus (step 412 description, Fig. 7D feasible design description). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system and He’s link establishment in order to improve the real-time performance of data pushing.
Yao does not expressly disclose but Baldwin teaches or suggests the multi-link access request comprising a first quantity of internet of things devices accessing (¶ 69). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system, He’s link establishment, and Baldwin’s request in order to support data transfer speeds associated with a data intensive application.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210184931 (Yao) in view of WO 2020063086 (He) further in view of US 20140040493 (Baldwin) and WO 2012152024 (Liu).
Yao does not expressly disclose but Liu teaches or suggests the multi-link access request further carries a communication frequency of the internet of things device accessing the edge gateway, and wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions further cause the apparatus to determine the second quantity by determining, based on the communication frequency, the second quantity of the second communication links (step 205 description). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system, He’s link establishment, Baldwin’s request, and Liu’s request in order to improve convenience and speed.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210184931 (Yao) in view of WO 2020063086 (He) further in view of US 20140040493 (Baldwin) and US 6182141 (Blum).
Yao does not expressly disclose but Blum teaches or suggests before performing the data transmission, when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions further cause the apparatus to: receive a link establishment request that is from the edge gateway and that carries a private port number (9:19-30); and establish a third communication link between the edge gateway and a service instance corresponding to the private port number (9:40-45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system, He’s link establishment, Baldwin’s request, and Blum’s link such that non-proxied requests are handled transparently even in the presence of a proxy server.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210184931 (Yao) in view of WO 2020063086 (He) further in view of US 20140040493 (Baldwin) and WO 2022143618 (Xing).
Yao does not expressly disclose but Xing teaches or suggests the multi-link access request further carries a communication frequency of the internet of things device accessing the edge gateway, and wherein when executed by the one or more processors, the instructions further cause the apparatus to determine the second quantity by determining, based on the communication frequency, the second quantity of the second communication link (abs.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system, He’s link establishment, Baldwin’s request, and Xing’s communication frequency so as to improve an application usage experience.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210184931 (Yao) in view of WO 2020063086 (He) further in view of US 20140040493 (Baldwin) and US 20140133302 (Fu).
Yao does not expressly disclose but Fu teaches or suggests the communication link selection policy comprises random selection or sequential selection (¶ 79). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Yao’s system, He’s link establishment, Baldwin’s request, and Fu’s selection to optimize link utilization and end-to-end delay or latency constraints.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 11444794 stores an application server device list that includes one or more application server devices that are to be notified when the IoT device is determined to be in an awake state (abs.).
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights