DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed June 9, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 12-15, and 17-22 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2013/0205035), in view of Battin (US 2002/0199019), and further in view of Camarillo (US 2010/0185725).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses:
intercepting a first system call from the client application executing on a computing device, wherein the first system call comprises a first request to connect to a first destination using a first set of system call parameters (see at least paragraph 65, socket translation and intercepting an ipv6 system call initiated by an ipv6 application; fig 2, IPv6 application on a client; paragraph 64, when the host translating module receives information from the IPv6 application, it needs to translate the application information including an IPv6 address into IPv4 application information, and transmit the information in an IPv4 network; paragraphs 13 and 14, providing network communication by translating ipv6 information into ipv4 information; paragraphs105 and 106) […];
determining, based on the first destination, a second set of system call parameters […]; generating a second system call, wherein the second system call comprises a second request to connect to a target destination using the second set of system call parameters (see at least paragraph 65, socket translation and converting the system call into a corresponding ipv4 system call; paragraphs 105 and 106); and
creating a […] connection from the client application to the target destination based on the second system call (see at least figs 3 and 4; paragraph 107)
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose, but Battin discloses:
creating a socket connection from the client application to the target destination based on the second system call (see at least Fig 7 and paragraph 52; paragraph 70, socket abstraction layer converts the connection message into a socket and connect function call, attempting to initiation a socket connection, if successful a virtual connection is established between the client communication device and the destination device; paragraph 64, provides an example of interpreting IPv4 to IPv6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s network communication via socket translation by adapting the teachings of Battin to include the system call being a socket connection call. The combination allows for more efficient communication between client and target by reducing headers which lowers overhead and conserves communication bandwidth (Battin Abstract).
However, Chen and Battin do not explicitly disclose, but Camarillo discloses:
that includes a first socket for connecting to external destinations relative to the computing device (see at least paragraph 5, at a first node, intercepting a socket call generated by a first application and redirecting the socket call to an application resident at said first node; figures 2 and 3; paragraph 10, the legacy application generates a socket call is intended to establish a connection with a peer node over a transport layer [external destination])
that includes replacing the first socket with a second socket for connecting to internal destinations relative to the computing device (see at least paragraph 5, at a first node, intercepting a socket call generated by a first application and redirecting the socket call to an application resident at said first node; figures 2 and 3; paragraph 30, legacy application at a client attempts to connect to a socket, clients can use connected sockets towards servers, and the intercepted redirects the call to the IMS application resident at the client; paragraph 27-29, IMS application provides dummy remote IP address and port number pair via a socket API function and the allocated socket ID);
wherein the first destination comprises an external destination relative to the computing device, and the target destination comprises an internal destination relative to the computing device (see at least paragraph 5, at a first node, intercepting a socket call generated by a first application and redirecting the socket call to an application resident at said first node; figures 2 and 3; paragraph 10, the intercepted socket call generated by the legacy application is intended to establish a connection with a peer node over a transport layer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Battin by adapting the teachings of Camarillo to include the socket call intended for a peer node to be intercepted and redirected to an internal application. The combination allows for legacy applications to utilize IP sessions over an SIP-based infrastructure transparently without changing the legacy application (Camarillo paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the internal destination comprises a service mesh, and the method further comprises causing a second connection to be established from the service mesh to the first destination (see at least paragraphs 105 and 106; fig 4; paragraphs 63-65, the system call is intercepted by the host translating module which converts the system call and sends it on to the ipv4 application)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the first request specifies the first socket, and wherein generating the second system call comprises: generating the second socket; and specifying the second socket in the second request, wherein creating the socket connection from the client application to the target destination comprises replacing the first socket with the second socket (see at least Chen paragraphs 63-65; Camarillo paragraphs 5, 10, and 27-30)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the first socket is associated with a first network namespace, and wherein the second socket is associated with a second network namespace (see at least paragraphs 63-65, the ipv6 application system call to the ipv4 application)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the first network namespace comprises an IPv6 namespace, and wherein second network namespace comprises an IPv4 namespace (see at least paragraphs 63-65, the ipv6 application system call to the ipv4 application)
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein determining the second set of system call parameters is further based on one or more of: routing information associated with the first destination, reachability information associated with the first destination, policy information associated with a service mesh, or one or more rules associated with the first destination (see at least paragraph 65, socket translation and converting the system call into a corresponding ipv4 system call; paragraphs 105 and 106)
Regarding claims 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 1, and they are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the first system call specifies the first socket that is associated with one or more external communication protocols, and wherein generating the second system call comprises generating the second socket that is associated with one or more internal communication protocols (see at least paragraphs 105 and fig 4; paragraphs 63-65, the system call is intercepted by the host translating module which converts the system call and sends it on to the ipv4 application)
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein the first destination comprises a first virtual address, and the target destination comprises a first real address associated with the first virtual address (see at least paragraphs 105 and 106)
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated, and Chen as modified further discloses:
wherein generating the second socket comprises: switching from the first network namespace to the second network namespace; and generating the second socket in the second network namespace (see at least paragraphs 105 and 106; fig 4; paragraphs 63-65, the system call is intercepted by the host translating module which converts the system call and sends it on to the ipv4 application)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2013/0205035), in view of Battin (US 2002/0199019), further in view of Camarillo (US 2010/0185725), and still further in view of Reznik (US 2012/0275323).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. However, Chen, Battin, and Camarillo do not explicitly disclose, but Reznik discloses:
wherein the first socket is associated with a first socket type, and wherein the second socket is associated with a second socket type (see at least table 4 and paragraph 150, socket type)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, Battin, and Camarillo’s network communication via socket translation by adapting the teachings of Reznik to include details about sockets and socket connections. The combination allows for sockets to have a type for more variety of socket handling by programmers.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under §103:
Applicant asserts based on the previous art mappings Camarillo would have to disclose that the socket call to the OS socket APIs uses a first set of system call parameters that includes a first socket for connecting to external destinations, that the redirected socket call uses a second set of system call parameters that includes replacing the first socket with a second socket for connecting to internal destinations. Applicant asserts Camarillo would also have to disclose creating a socket connection from the first application to the SIP application based on the redirected socket call. Applicant contends Camarillo does not disclose these teachings, specifically detailing Camarillo does not disclose sockets are specified in the socket call to connect to the second application or the redirected socket call to the SIP application and does not disclose replacing a first socket in the socket call with a different second socket in the redirected socket call for creating a socket connection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Camarillo discloses the legacy application at a server generates a socket API call and the OS diverts that call away from the transport layer to an IMS application and the IMS application receives the call (figure 3). The intercepted socket call that was generated by the legacy application is intended to establish a connection with a peer node over a transport layer (paragraph 10), or an external destination. Camarillo paragraph 9 details a socket call containing a socket and paragraphs 24 and 25 provide details about the redirecting process which includes intercepting socket calls from an application and redirecting them using various system libraries and functions as well as intercepting calls to the socket API and redirecting them to an IMS endpoint away from the intended destination. As the socket call is intercepted and redirected, the destination of the socket call has changed. Camarillo paragraph 30 also states a legacy application at a client attempts to connect to a socket, clients can use connected sockets towards servers, and the interceptor redirects the call to the IMS application resident at the client. The socket call contains a destination IP address and port number. Therefore the combination of the prior art does disclose intercepting a first system call from the client application that comprises a request to connect to a first destination using a first set of system call parameters that includes a first socket for connecting to external destinations relative to the computing device and determining a second set of system call parameters that includes replacing the first socket with a second socket for connecting to internal destinations relative to the computing device as seen in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guenther discloses a client application tries to open a TCP/IP connection with a server application and the connection is redirected to the interceptor client (¶ 58, 92, fig 3). Nurenberg discloses a socket redirector on the client or the server that intercepts socket calls and modifies the parameters of the socket call in order to redirect the client request to a better source than originally requested (col 2, lines 15-24).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights