DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed on 3/13/2026 claims 15- 16 are added as new claims and claims 2- 16 are pending for examinations.
Examiner’s Note
After reviewing all parent applications including provisional ones, examiner states that the limitations, “at the virtual interface, distributing packet data traffic for forwarding to the EPD among the plurality of tunnels according to a dynamically selectable transmit mode of a plurality of transmit modes….. in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes the same packet data traffic to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels”; are not disclosed in any above disclosures. Hence the effective filing date for at least above limitations will be 8/22/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. After reviewing all parent applications including provisional ones, examiner states that the limitations, “at the virtual interface, distributing packet data traffic for forwarding to the EPD among the plurality of tunnels according to a dynamically selectable transmit mode of a plurality of transmit modes….. in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes the same packet data traffic to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels”; are not disclosed in any above disclosures; hence it is a new matter scenario. Dependent claims can be rejected based on same above rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the remarks on 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Still the limitations regarding in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes the same packet data traffic to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels”; are not disclosed in any above disclosures (including Provisionals); hence it is a new matter scenario.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15- 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 2- 3, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kini et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0343180 A1) in view of Cunningham et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0297897 A1), hereafter Kevin.
Regarding claim 2, Kini teaches a method for an access point (AP) to communicate packet data traffic with an endpoint device (EPD) (see Fig. 2 wherein #14 as an AP and SN1 as an EPD), comprising:
at an AP, negotiating with an EPD to establish a plurality of separately encrypted tunnels between the AP and the EPD (see [0025].. BN1 proactively monitors its connectivity to SN1 before a failure occurs to the connection between BN1 and SN1. BN1 may monitor one or more of the following conditions and each condition is described below);
at the AP, associating each tunnel of the plurality of tunnels with a virtual interface (see Fig. 2); and
at the virtual interface, distributing packet data traffic for forwarding to the EPD among the plurality of tunnels according to a dynamically selectable transmit mode of a plurality of transmit modes (as discussed above in [0025] regarding one or more of the following conditions; now refer to [0026- 0027]); but fails to state about
wherein in a first mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes packet data traffic into a plurality of unique parallel streams, each given parallel stream of the plurality of unique parallel streams for encryption and transmission over a respective one of the plurality of tunnels, and
in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes the same packet data traffic to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels.
However Kevin in context with Figs. 7 and 8 states in Fig. 11A about two modes as bonded (i.e. here first mode) and mirror mode (i.e. here second mode); see [0124] wherein ….a VPN is established. As illustrated in FIG. 5, a VPN may be established across less than all of the connections between first computer device 102 and second computer device 202. As alternatively shown in FIG. 5, a VPN may be established that extends from first computer device 102 to second computer device 202. …..Optional step 310b refers to a single VPN that is established from a first computer device to a second computer device; now refer to step 320 and 330 and 340 (i.e. for first mode) about data that will be transmitted over a VPN is separated into more than one group. For example, the data can be separated into a first group of packets, and the data can be separated into a second group of packets. The first group of packets and the second group of packets may be subsequently transmitted over separate channels. This is illustrated, for example, in FIG. 7 in which packets have been separated into two groups, and the first group with packets 1, 3 and 5 is transmitted over channel 153 while the second group of packets comprising packets 2, 4 and 6 is transmitted over channel 155. At step 330, the packets in each group are encrypted. Alternatively, packets may be encapsulated without being encrypted. In other words, at this step, the encryption that results in data being transmitted over a VPN may occur. Thus, the packets in the first group may be encrypted and the packets that are included in the second group may be encrypted..; see [0126- 0127]; now refer to step 350, 360 (for second mode) and see [0130] for mirrored mode when due to detection of failure same packets may be transmitted over two separate channels (i.e. refer to Fig. 8 and [0110]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Kevin with the teachings of Kini to make system more reliable. Having a mechanism wherein in a first mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes packet data traffic into a plurality of unique parallel streams, each given parallel stream of the plurality of unique parallel streams for encryption and transmission over a respective one of the plurality of tunnels, and in a second mode of the plurality of transmit modes, the virtual interface distributes the same packet data traffic to at least two of the plurality of tunnels for separate encryption and transmission over each of the at least two of the plurality of tunnels; greater way more reliable communication can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 3, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, further comprising testing communications between the AP and the EPD for packet loss, and
selecting the second mode during times of high packet loss and/or times of unstable network connectivity; Kevin [0126]... for example, in FIG. 7 in which packets have been separated into two groups, and the first group with packets 1, 3 and 5 is transmitted over channel 153 while the second group of packets comprising packets 2, 4 and 6 is transmitted over channel 155; now refer to [0127- 0128] At step 330, the packets in each group are encrypted. Alternatively, packets may be encapsulated without being encrypted. In other words, at this step, the encryption that results in data being transmitted over a VPN may occur. Thus, the packets in the first group may be encrypted and the packets that are included in the second group may be encrypted.. now refer to step 350, 360 (for second mode) and see [0130] for mirrored mode when due to detection of failure same packets may be transmitted over two separate channels (i.e. refer to Fig. 8 and [0110]).
Regarding claim 8, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, further comprising, after establishing a given tunnel of the plurality of tunnels, determining a particular subset of all packet data traffic to the EPD that is directed to the given tunnel; Kini see [0022]… BN1 establishes a tunnel 101 to BN2 before any switchover occurs. … When BN1 receives a packet from the core network 18 that is to be sent on the previously active path 102, BN1 re-routes the packet to BN2 as a next hop through the tunnel 101. Since AN1 has switched over to BN2, BN2 has a directly connected route for sending that packet to AN1 and therefore the packet is able to reach CE1. In one embodiment, BN1 sends the packet over the tunnel 101 only for a predetermined short time (e.g., 200 milliseconds) after the active path 102 goes down to prevent traffic looping. This predetermined short time is an estimated amount of time for the routing in the core network 18 to converge.
Regarding claim 16, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, wherein at least two of plurality of tunnels in the second mode share a common physical transport media; see Kevin refer to step 350, 360 (for second mode) and see [0130] for mirrored mode when due to detection of failure same packets may be transmitted over two separate channels (i.e. refer to Fig. 8 and [0110]
Claim(s) 4- 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kini et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0343180 A1) in view of Cunningham et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0297897 A1), hereafter Kevin and in further view of Albright et al. (US Pat. No. 6209039 B1), hereafter Martin.
Regarding claim 4, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, but Kini is silent about wherein at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active; however martin teaches in col. 6 lines 5- 21 about at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martin with the teachings of Kini in view of Kevin to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein at least two of the plurality of tunnels are concurrently active; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 5, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, but Kini fails to state about at a given time after each of the plurality of tunnels is established and associated with the virtual interface, placing one or more of the plurality of tunnels in an active tunnel mode and at least one other tunnel of the plurality of tunnels in a standby mode, wherein in the standby mode the at least one other tunnel is instantaneously selectable for redesignation to the active tunnel mode; however Martin states in Abstract about … plurality of data links that connect a master node in the first network to a slave node in the second network. The RNNI is initialized by operating an independent instance of a Link Integrity Verification (LIV) routine on each of the data links, returning an UP or DOWN status. One of the data links is designated as the ACTIVE data link, and the remaining data links are designated as INACTIVE.. . It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Martin with the teachings of Kini in view of Kevin to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism about at a given time after each of the plurality of tunnels is established and associated with the virtual interface, placing one or more of the plurality of tunnels in an active tunnel mode and at least one other tunnel of the plurality of tunnels in a standby mode, wherein in the standby mode the at least one other tunnel is instantaneously selectable for redesignation to the active tunnel mode; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system.
Regarding claim 6, Kini in view of Kevin and Martin teaches as per claim 5, wherein at least one of the one or more of the tunnels in an active mode and the at least one other tunnel share a common physical interface at the EPD; martin in context with abstract (i.e. a plurality of data links that connect a master node in the first network to a slave node in the second network. The RNNI is initialized by operating an independent instance of a Link Integrity Verification (LIV) routine on each of the data links, returning an UP or DOWN status. One of the data links is designated as the ACTIVE data link, and the remaining data links are designated as INACTIVE. Once the RNNI is initialized, the ACTIVE data link is monitored using RNNI link management procedures including the LIV routine and a Permanent Virtual Circuit (PVC) polling routine…) pls refer to lines 4- 16 of col. 7regarding use of the common Frame Relay access protocol at the UNIs, NNIs, and RNNIs.
Claim(s) 9- 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kini et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0343180 A1) in view of Cunningham et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0297897 A1), hereafter Kevin and in further view of Sella et al. (US Pat. No. 8611355 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 8, but Kini is silent about, wherein determining the particular subset comprises associating a particular traffic flow with the given tunnel based at least on a traffic type and a quality of service available through the given tunnel; however Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sella with the teachings of Kini in view of Kevin to make system more standardized. Having a mechanism wherein determining the particular subset comprises associating a particular traffic flow with the given tunnel based at least on a traffic type and a quality of service available through the given tunnel; greater way more standardized approach can be carried out in the communication system
Regarding claim 10, Kini in view of Kevin and Sella teaches as per claim 9, further comprising characterizing the quality of service available through the given tunnel based at least in part on evaluating a plurality of connectivity metrics for each of the plurality of tunnels, the plurality of connectivity metrics comprising at least each of bandwidth, packet latency, and packet loss; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 11, Kini in view of Kevin and Sella teaches as per claim 9, wherein associating a particular traffic flow with the given traffic flow comprises at least one of favoring selection of a given tunnel with lowest latency for relatively small sized data and favoring selection of a given tunnel with highest bandwidth for relatively large sized data; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 12, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, but Kini is silent about further comprising evaluating a plurality of connectivity metrics for each of the plurality of tunnels, the plurality of connectivity metrics comprising at least each of bandwidth, packet latency, and packet loss; however Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream…. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Sella with the teachings of Kini in view of Kevin to make system more reliable.
Regarding claim 13, Kini in view of Kevin and Sella teaches as per claim 2, wherein evaluating the plurality of connectivity metrics comprises analyzing current user traffic for each of the plurality of tunnels; Sella states in col. 2 37- 44 about .. route data, embodiments use a virtual routing server (or set of virtual routing servers distributed throughout the network), sometimes referred to as a virtual router. The virtual router may connect to all physical routers in the network and gather information related to network operation such as traffic load, link latencies, link jitter, link packet loss, and link failures. Using such information, the virtual router is in the best position to provide an optimized route for a data stream.
Regarding claim 14, Kini in view of Kevin and Sella teaches as per claim 13, wherein evaluating the plurality of connectivity metrics further comprises running connectivity tests using free capacity available from the AP; Sella lines 35- 44 of col. 8 (i.e. it may select the path from a plurality of different available paths connecting the source to the destination based on the relative amount of available capacity or based on the relative latency of the plurality of different paths. In another embodiment, path determination module 708 may determine the path such that data from the data stream will pass through a particular machine or class of machines in the network) and claim 2 regarding selecting the first path from a plurality of different paths connecting the source to the destination based on a relative amount of available capacity on the plurality of different paths .
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kini et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0343180 A1) in view of Cunningham et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0297897 A1), hereafter Kevin and in further view of Provine et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0031490 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kini in view of Kevin teaches as per claim 2, but Kini is silent about wherein at least two of the tunnels are concurrently active, the method further comprising instantaneously switching traffic from one tunnel of the at least two of the tunnels to another of the at least two of the tunnels without loss or leakage of data; however Provine in [0015] and Fig. 5 states about steps of switching over traffic between protected tunnels and backup tunnel(s) after a failure according to one embodiment of the present invention. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to consider the teachings of Provine with the teachings of Kini in view of Kevin to make system more effective. Having a mechanism wherein at least two of the tunnels are concurrently active, the method further comprising instantaneously switching traffic from one tunnel of the at least two of the tunnels to another of the at least two of the tunnels without loss or leakage of data; greater way more reliable way resources can be utilized/managed can be carried out in the communication system
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARTH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1970. The examiner can normally be reached 7 a.m. -7 p.m. PST.
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, Jae Y. Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
PARTH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
/PARTH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights