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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/29/26 has been entered.
Upon further search and review, the claims have been rejected after the review of the IDS and the discovery of new art.
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) 1-3, 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons et al. (10,277,506) in view of Tomici et al. (11,146,956).
Timmons teaches a method and system (abstract) in the art of extending network service (background, summary and claims) via a number of intermediate nodes (col. 4, lines 15-50) with a set of neutral hops (col. 5, lines 40-60) and path selection (col. 8, lines 30-60).
While Timmons does briefly mention tunneling (col. 1, lines 45-65), it does not expressly disclose the combination of tunnel connections and access points. Tomici teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) of a number of secure tunnel segments (col. 4, lines 15-35) connecting access points(col. 4, lines 35-60) to the endpoints (col. 6, lines 10-40). The paths are then selected (col. 7, line 65 – col. 8, line 25) based on some rating (interpreted generically as any of a variety of metrics, scoring or measurements)(col. 24, lines 35-60). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Tomici in order to provide improvements to increase network range (col. 1, lines 15-30).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons and Tomici as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLamply et al. (9,729,439).
Timmons and Tomici do not expressly disclose the use of this memory. McLampy teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes this limitation (col. 1, line 60 – col. 3, line 5). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added McLampy in order to provide improvements to tunneling protocols (col. 1, lines 35-55).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights