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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7-15 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant asserts that the independent claims are allegedly allowable because the limitations of allowable dependent claim 4 were amended into the independent claims. However, this is incorrect. The independent claims were amended to recite “perform at least one of: delivering a third packet to the first server process in the standby state if the third packet is a reset packet compliant with an internet protocol; or discarding the third packet addressed to the first server process in the unavailable state if the third packet is other than a reset packet.” Accordingly, because the phrase “perform at least one of:” is used, the allowable limitation from claim 4 is not required to be performed in the independent claims.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burckart et al. (US 2005/0108723) in view of Nishida (US 2005/0223352), and further in view of Dobbins et al. (USPN 5,951,649).
Regarding claim 1, Burckart discloses an apparatus (Burckart, paragraph [0004], addressing of information for delivery to a computing process at a specific network address using a specific port) comprising:
execute a first server process, the first server process corresponding to a first application on the apparatus (Burckart, paragraph [0002], multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic);
deliver a first packet to the first server process upon receipt of the first packet over a port (Burckart, paragraph [0004], addressing of information for delivery to a computing process at a specific network address using a specific port, address and port can form the basis of socket based communications; paragraph [0006], multiple server processes listen on the same port; paragraph [0007], multiple processes can share a single port by virtue of a shared port mapping; paragraph [0009], port sharing among multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic);
execute a second server process, the second server process corresponding to a second application on the apparatus (Burckart, paragraph [0002], multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic);
transition the first server process to a unselected state upon executing the second server process in the selected state (Burckart, paragraph [0002], multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic); and
deliver a second packet to the second server process upon receipt of the second packet over the port (Burckart, paragraph [0004], addressing of information for delivery to a computing process at a specific network address using a specific port, address and port can form the basis of socket based communications; paragraph [0006], multiple server processes listen on the same port; paragraph [0007], multiple processes can share a single port by virtue of a shared port mapping; paragraph [0009], port sharing among multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic).
Burckart does not explicitly disclose an active state and a standby state and a transition from active to standby state, and does not explicitly disclose packets.
Nishida discloses transition the first server process to a standby state upon executing the second server process in the active state (Nishida, paragraph [0010], standby status; paragraph [0012], program management unit, controlling a plurality of programs; paragraph [0013], detecting a program for an application corresponding to event information, receiving event information for activating another program in a situation of having the executing program in advance, referring to the conflicting condition of the another program requested for execution, activating the another program after suspending the executing program due to the conflicting condition of the another program); and
deliver a second packet to the second server process upon receipt of the second packet over the port (Nishida, paragraph [0010], standby status; paragraph [0012], program management unit, controlling a plurality of programs; paragraph [0013], detecting a program for an application corresponding to event information, receiving event information for activating another program in a situation of having the executing program in advance, referring to the conflicting condition of the another program requested for execution, activating the another program after suspending the executing program due to the conflicting condition of the another program).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to activate one process and suspend another process, as in Nishida, when server processes have conflicting port information, in Burckart. The motivation to combine the references would have been to resolve the port conflicts of Burckart.
Burckart does not explicitly disclose, but Dobbins discloses perform at least one of: delivering a third packet to the first server process in the standby state if the third packet is a reset packet compliant with an internet protocol; or discarding the third packet addressed to the first server process in the unavailable state if the third packet is other than a reset packet (Dobbins, column 7, lines 47-51, destination address for delivery; column 30, lines 66-67, discarding packets if a service is unavailable or denied).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discarding a packet related to the process being unavailable, as in Dobbins, when the server process is in the standby state in the socket management data, as Burckart in view of Nishida. The motivation to combine the references would have been to free up storage resources.
Regarding claim 3, Burckart in view of Nishida discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
receive a third packet to the first server process in the standby state while the second server process is in the active state if the third packet is other than a reset packet (Burckart, paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic) (Nishida, paragraph [0010], standby status; paragraph [0012], program management unit, controlling a plurality of programs; paragraph [0013], detecting a program for an application corresponding to event information, receiving event information for activating another program in a situation of having the executing program in advance, referring to the conflicting condition of the another program requested for execution, activating the another program after suspending the executing program due to the conflicting condition of the another program).
Burckart in view of Nishida does not explicitly disclose, but Dobbins discloses discarding a packet related to a server process in the standby state if the third packet is other than a reset packet (Dobbins, column 30, lines 66-67, discarding packets if a service is unavailable or denied).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to discarding a packet related to the process being unavailable, as in Dobbins, when the server process in the standby state in the socket management data, as Burckart in view of Nishida. The motivation to combine the references would have been to free up storage resources.
Regarding claim 5, Burckart in view of Nishida, and further in view of Dobbins discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: deliver the third packet to the first server process (Burckart, paragraph [0004], addressing of information for delivery to a computing process at a specific network address using a specific port, address and port can form the basis of socket based communications; paragraph [0006], multiple server processes listen on the same port; paragraph [0007], multiple processes can share a single port by virtue of a shared port mapping; paragraph [0009], port sharing among multiple server processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic) if the third packet is a TCP finish packet (Dobbins, column 2, line 62-63, packets, TCP/IP protocol).
Regarding claim 7, Burckart in view of Nishida discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: transition the first server process to the active state responsive to an operation with regards to the first application on the apparatus; and transition the second server process in the active state to the standby state upon transitioning the first server process in the active state (Burckart, paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic) (Nishida, paragraph [0013], activating the another program after suspending the executing program due to the conflicting condition of the another program).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claim 1. Burckart additionally discloses a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer
Regarding claim 10, Burckart in view of Nishida discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a first apparatus, wherein the first apparatus is configured to receive the first packet from a first client process that is configured to be executed on a second apparatus, and wherein the first apparatus is further configured to receive the second packet from a second client process that is configured to be executed on a third apparatus (Burckart, paragraph [0004], client computing processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic; paragraph [0021], server communicates with one or more client computing devices; paragraph [0036], computer system with a computer program that is loaded and executed).
Regarding claim 11, Burckart in view of Nishida discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first client process executed on the second apparatus corresponds to the first application, and wherein the second client process executed on the third apparatus corresponds to the second application (Burckart, paragraph [0004], client computing processes; paragraph [0009], map incoming traffic in the single port to selected ones of the application processes; paragraph [0010], select a particular one of the application processes in the list to which to route selected incoming traffic; paragraph [0021], server communicates with one or more client computing devices; paragraph [0036], computer system with a computer program that is loaded and executed).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 10 and 11.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under substantially the same rationale as claims 10 and 11. Burckart additionally discloses a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, Burckart in view of Nishida, and further in view of Dobbins does not disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, the circuitry is further configured to: deliver the third packet to the first server process in the standby state if the third packet is a transmission control protocol (TCP) reset packet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh et al. (US 20190215272) discloses when traffic exceeds the processing capacity of a VNF, the service provided by the VNF becomes overloaded, which causes resource exhaustion and disruption, potentially leading to critical services becoming unavailable to customers. 2) Cascaded failure of services. Failure of one VNF instance increases the traffic load on remaining VNF instances and can cause a cascade of failures overwhelming a data center. 3) A single traffic overload mechanism is unaware of different types of services. Applying a uniform, single traffic overload protection policy (for e.g., packet drop.
Hipp (USPN 6,859,835) discloses port multiplexing provided by the present invention allows multiple applications and processes, such as multiple socket-based server processes, to utilize the same port number without interfering with the operation and data transfer associated with each application and process.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 ALAN LOUIS LINDENBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-3858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Un Cho can be reached on (571) 272-7919. 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.
/ALAN L LINDENBAUM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413