DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-17, and 19 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 12-21 are withdrawn. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-6 and 8-22 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 05/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claim 1 are fully considered and are satisfactory to overcome the rejections directed to claims 1-6 and 8-11 in the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 12-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites “The network element of claim 1, wherein… responsive to receiving the first SUBSCRIBE request from the remote network element via the first connection, the processor is configured to”, whereas claim 1 recites “transmit the first request to the remote network element”. However, the specification provides no description where a network elements sends a subscription request to itself over a network connection, identifying itself as a “remote” network element.
More specifically, the specification describes a “client network element” (Fig. 9-10) that implements the features recited in claim 1 to transmit a SUBSCRIBE request to a target network element (e.g. a remote network element in the form of a server), and a “target network element” (Fig. 11) that receives the SUBSCRIBE request and implements the features recited in claim 12.
However, there is no description in the specification regarding a single network element that simultaneously acts as a client and a target network element to: (i) send a subscribe request over a network to implement the limitations recited in claim 1, and (ii) receive the same subscribe request over the network to implement the limitations recited in claim 12. That is, there is no enabling description for a singular network element that implements both the features disclosed in Fig. 9-10 and the features disclosed in Fig. 11.
As such, claim 12 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 13-21 inherit the features of claim 12 and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 1-6 and 8-22 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “without configuring additional system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications” in lines 22-23. However, the specification provides no description regarding any “additional system resources” associated with the client application and/or not configuring such additional system resources for the client application in response to second request type matching the first request type. At most, the specification provides a determination of matching request types (e.g. Fig. 10, step 238) but does not describe any “additional system resources” for the client application and/or not configuring such additional system resources in response to the determination made in step 238.
As such, claim 1 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-11 inherit the features of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites “The network element of claim 1, wherein… responsive to receiving the first SUBSCRIBE request from the remote network element via the first connection, the processor is configured to”, whereas claim 1 recites “transmit the first request to the remote network element”. However, the specification provides no description where a network elements sends a subscription request to itself over a network connection, identifying itself as a “remote” network element.
More specifically, the specification describes a “client network element” (Fig. 9-10) that implements the features recited in claim 1 to transmit a SUBSCRIBE request to a target network element (e.g. a remote network element in the form of a server), and a “target network element” (Fig. 11) that receives the SUBSCRIBE request and implements the features recited in claim 12.
However, the original disclosure provides no description in the specification regarding a single network element that simultaneously acts as a client and a target network element to: (i) send a subscribe request over a network to implement the limitations recited in claim 1, and (ii) receive the same subscribe request over the network to implement the limitations recited in claim 12. That is, there is no description in the original disclosure for a singular network element that implements both the features disclosed in Fig. 9-10 and the features disclosed in Fig. 11.
As such, claim 12 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.
Claims 13-21 inherit the features of claim 12 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 22 recites “without configuring additional system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications” in lines 21-22. However, the specification provides no description regarding any “additional system resources” associated with the client application and/or not configuring such additional system resources for the client application in response to second request type matching the first request type. At most, the specification provides a determination of matching request types (e.g. Fig. 10, step 238) but does not describe any “additional system resources” for the client application and/or not configuring such additional system resources in response to the determination made in step 238.
As such, claim 22 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 12-22 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.
Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites “The network element of claim 1, wherein… responsive to receiving the first SUBSCRIBE request from the remote network element via the first connection, the processor is configured to”, whereas claim 1 recites “transmit the first request to the remote network element”. However, it is not clear how the network element both transmits a SUBSCRIBE request to a remote network element and receives the same SUBSCRIBE request from the remote network element. Furthermore, the specification discloses two separate network elements that transmit and receive a SUBSCRIBE request, respectively, and there is no disclosure for a single network element that both transmits and receives the same SUBSCRIBE message.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider claim 12 as referring to a different network element, specifically the target network element shown in Fig. 11.
Claims 13-21 inherit the features of claim 12 and are rejected accordingly.
Claim 22 recites “the method comprising the processor to” in line 4. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation as methods comprise functional steps and a processor is not a functional step. As such, it is not clear if this limitation is referring to the method comprising the claimed functional steps (configuring, establishing, transmitting, etc.) which are implemented by the claimed processor, or if the recited functional steps are implemented by the processor and the claim do not identify any functional steps for the method.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider this limitation as referring to –the method comprising:--- the claimed functional steps and the functional steps being implemented by the processor, such as –configuring, by the processor, one or more first system resources--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorone et al. (US 2016/0294615 A1; hereinafter Fiorone) in view of Knight et al. (US 2021/0329100 A1; hereinafter Knight).
With respect to claim 1, Fiorone teaches: A network element (see e.g. Fiorone, Fig. 6: “602”; and paragraph 33: “network element 602”) comprising:
an embedded device (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 33: “dispatcher 300 in the network element 602”) comprising a processor (see e.g. Fiorone, Fig. 9: “Processor 902”; and paragraph 66: “dispatcher 300 comprises a processor 902”);
a communication device (see e.g. Fiorone, Fig. 9: “IF 906”) in communication with the embedded device (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 66: “dispatcher also comprises an interface 906”) and operable to communicate via a communication network (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 66: “an interface 906 for communication with other elements of the server network, 600, 700, 800, and/or the client network, 650”; and Fig. 6); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium (see e.g. Fiorone, Fig. 9: “Memory 904”) storing a common client interface comprising processor-executable code that when executed causes the processor to (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 66: “said memory 904 contains instructions executable by said processor 902…By executing the instructions stored in the memory 904 the dispatcher 300 is configured to receive 102 a first connection request from a client 302 and to analyse 104 said first connection request. The dispatcher if further configured to select 108 a control plane based on results of the analysis and characteristics of control planes at the disposal of the dispatcher 300 in the multi-technology network 600, 700, 800”):
responsive to the network element receiving a request from a particular one of a plurality of client applications (see e.g. Fiorone, Fig. 3: “Client 302”; and paragraph 28: “in order to answer to a client's request for connection”):
configure one or more first system resources (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 23: “allocate a control plane”) for the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 23: “allocate a control plane in case of multi-technology network by adding a control plane dispatcher, whose role is to add the automation and the necessary intelligence to select the best technology and related control plane to be used for a given connection request”; and paragraph 39: “selecting the one control plane that will best serve the particular request”), the one or more first system resources based at least in part on a first request type of the first request (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 25: “control plane dispatcher, 300, selects on a per connection request basis what is the best technology for that request and its requirements, preferably taking also into account the status of the network resources”; and paragraph 40: “an optimal selection of the control plane is achieved, which takes into account specifics of the connection request”);
establish, with the communication device, a first connection (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 36: “network elements of the multi-technology network 600 are configured to offer connections… provision the connection”) with a remote network element in a transport network (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 36: “connections across the network 600 using different technologies (e.g. DWDM, OTN, MPLS)”; and Fig. 6); and
transmit the first request to the remote network element via the first connection (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 54: “a second connection request is sent, 112, to a server associated with the technology selected by the dispatcher 300 as best serving the connection request. The second connection request is representative of the first connection request received from the client”);
responsive to the network element receiving a second request from the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 28: “in order to answer to a client's request for connection”; paragraph 29: “number of combinations of possible control plane requests for the different data plane options in a multi-technology network”; and paragraph 67: “connection requests are diverted to the dispatcher”):
responsive to the processor determining that a second request type of the second request matches the first request type of the first request (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 25: “control plane dispatcher, 300, selects on a per connection request basis what is the best technology for that request and its requirements, preferably taking also into account the status of the network resources”; and paragraph 40: “an optimal selection of the control plane is achieved, which takes into account specifics of the connection request”), transmit the second request to the remote network element via the first connection (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 54: “a second connection request is sent, 112, to a server associated with the technology selected by the dispatcher 300 as best serving the connection request. The second connection request is representative of the first connection request received from the client”) without configuring additional system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 23: “a control plane dispatcher, whose role is to add the automation and the necessary intelligence to select the best technology and related control plane to be used for a given connection request… the client 302 is separated from the various technologies available in the multi-technology network and their control planes 304, 306 and 308 by the dispatcher 300”; and paragraph 54: “connection requests coming from an IP router (client) 302 is received by the dispatcher 300, processed as discussed above”);
responsive to the processor determining that the second request type of the second request does not match the first request type of the first request (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 25: “control plane dispatcher, 300, selects on a per connection request basis what is the best technology for that request and its requirements, preferably taking also into account the status of the network resources”; and paragraph 40: “an optimal selection of the control plane is achieved, which takes into account specifics of the connection request”):
configure one or more second system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 23: “allocate a control plane in case of multi-technology network by adding a control plane dispatcher, whose role is to add the automation and the necessary intelligence to select the best technology and related control plane to be used for a given connection request”; and paragraph 39: “selecting the one control plane that will best serve the particular request”) based at least in part on the second request type of the second request (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 25: “control plane dispatcher, 300, selects on a per connection request basis what is the best technology for that request and its requirements, preferably taking also into account the status of the network resources”; and paragraph 40: “an optimal selection of the control plane is achieved, which takes into account specifics of the connection request”);
establish, with the communication device, a second connection (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 36: “network elements of the multi-technology network 600 are configured to offer connections… provision the connection”) with the remote network element in the transport network (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 36: “connections across the network 600 using different technologies (e.g. DWDM, OTN, MPLS)”; and Fig. 6); and
transmit the second request to the remote network element via the second connection (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 54: “a second connection request is sent, 112, to a server associated with the technology selected by the dispatcher 300 as best serving the connection request. The second connection request is representative of the first connection request received from the client”); and
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
responsive to the network element receiving a first response from the remote network element via the first connection, transmit the first response to the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 53: “client sends a single request to a server and receives a single response; server streaming RPC methods, wherein a client sends a request to a server and receives a stream of messages”);
responsive to the network element receiving a second response from the remote network element via the second connection, transmit the second response to the particular one of the plurality of client applications (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 53: “client sends a single request to a server and receives a single response; server streaming RPC methods, wherein a client sends a request to a server and receives a stream of messages”).
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: establishing communication channels between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communications between the client and the server.
With respect to claim 2, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 1, wherein the first one or more system resources comprise one or more of a computing resource (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 3: “IP/MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching), OTN and WDM each with its own control plane”; paragraph 4: “control planes (MPLS control plane, WDM control plane or the OTN control plane)”; and paragraph 55: “various servers offering the transport technologies converged at the server 602 (e.g. WDM server, MPLS server, OTN server)”), a networking resource (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 3: “IP/MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching), OTN and WDM each with its own control plane”; paragraph 4: “control planes (MPLS control plane, WDM control plane or the OTN control plane)”; and paragraph 29: “multi-technology network offering connections using MPLS, OTN and WDM”), a memory resource, and a storage resource.
With respect to claim 3, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 1,
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
wherein the first request is a remote procedure call, and the first response is a remote procedure response (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 53: “gRPC allows definition of various different types of service methods, such as, for example: unary RPC methods, wherein a client sends a single request to a server and receives a single response; server streaming RPC methods, wherein a client sends a request to a server and receives a stream of messages”).
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: establishing communication channels between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communications between the client and the server.
With respect to claim 4, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 3,
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
wherein the first request is a gRPC call, and the first response is a gRPC response (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 53: “gRPC allows definition of various different types of service methods, such as, for example: unary RPC methods, wherein a client sends a single request to a server and receives a single response; server streaming RPC methods, wherein a client sends a request to a server and receives a stream of messages”).
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: establishing communication channels between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communications between the client and the server.
With respect to claim 5, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 4, wherein the common client interface further comprises processor-executable code that when executed causes the processor to:
encode the first request in a predetermined serialized data format (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 32: “transport a client signal across the multi-technology network”; and paragraph 33: “A first connection requests is received from a client network (router 302 in the example illustrated in FIG. 6”); and
Since Fiorone discloses receiving the client request over a network, Fiorone inherently discloses encoding the request in a serialized data format for transmission.
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
decode the first response from the predetermined serialized data format (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 68: “use protobuf for request and response marshalling”).
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: establishing communication channels between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communications between the client and the server.
With respect to claim 6, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 5,
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
wherein the predetermined serialized data format is a protocol buffer format (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 68: “use protobuf for request and response marshalling”).
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: establishing communication channels between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communications between the client and the server.
With respect to claim 8, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 1, wherein the transport network is an optical transport network (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 2: “Multi-technology networks where packets, Optical Transport Networks (OTN)”).
With respect to claim 10, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 1,
Fiorone does not but Knight teaches:
wherein the processor is one or more of a digital signal processor, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, a microprocessor (see e.g. Knight, paragraph 223: “one or more conventional general purpose or specialized… microprocessor”), and a central processing unit.
Fiorone and Knight are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: providing a processor to process instructions for managing communications between a client and a server. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve processing efficiency.
With respect to claim 11, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 1, wherein the embedded device is one or more of a Wavelength Selective Switch (WSS) (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 2: “Wavelength-division Multiplexing (WDM)”; and paragraph 31: “WDM control plane is selected and provisioned”), a Variable Optical Attenuator (VOA), an Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier (EDFA), an optical laser, a Raman amplifier, and an optical channel monitor (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 2: “Optical Transport Networks (OTN)”; and paragraph 29: “offering connections using… OTN”).
With respect to claim 22: Claim 22 is directed to a method corresponding to the active functions implemented by the network element disclosed in claim 1; please see the rejection directed to claim 1 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 22.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiorone in view of Knight as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Honda et al. (US 2015/0288458 A1; hereinafter Honda).
With respect to claim 9, Fiorone as modified teaches: The network element of claim 8, wherein the network element further… to transmit and/or receive client data in the optical transport network (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 29: “multi-technology network offering connections using… OTN”).
Fiorone does not but Honda teaches:
comprises a digital coherent optics module having one or more coherent optical transceivers operable (see e.g. Honda, paragraph 34: “The receiver module includes a plurality of digital coherent receivers 11 (11#1 through 11#m) and a device controller 12 as illustrated in FIG. 3. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, a plurality of optical signals λ1-λm are generated by demultiplexing a received WDM optical signal. The optical signals λ1-λm are respectively guided to the digital coherent receivers”)
Fiorone and Honda are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing communications over an optical transmission network. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fiorone with the teachings of Knight. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the communication efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to reinstatement of claims 12-21 (Remarks, page 7), the Examiner notes that claims 1-6, 8-11 and claims 12-21 are directed to different embodiments. Specifically, claims 1-6 and 8-11 are directed to the client network element and its functions as disclosed in Fig. 9-10 whereas claims 12-21 are directed to a target network element (e.g. a server) and its functions as disclosed in Fig. 11.
Furthermore, claim 1 in its current form is not in condition for allowance. As such, in view of the Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 8-11 with the reply filed on 05/08/2025, claims 12-21 are maintained as withdrawn.
(ii) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 directed to claim 1 (Remarks, pages 8-9), the Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., device types) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
More specifically, claim 1 is directed to evaluating “request” types, such as with the limitation “determining that a second request type of the second request matches the first request type of the first request”. Claim 1, as currently presented, provides no consideration regarding “device” types.
Furthermore, the specification provides no description that equates a “request” to a “device” such that the term “request type” is analogous to the term “device type”. In fact, the specification explicitly provides exemplary functions; such as GET, SUBSCRIBE, SET, etc.; corresponding to request types, such as a GET request, SUSBSCRIBE request, SET request etc., for example in paragraph [0089].
Note that, Fiorone discloses a dispatcher 300 that receives connection requests with different requirements (i.e. a CONNECTION requests with different types) from clients and selects a network communication technology based on the specific requirements of each connection request (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 25: “control plane dispatcher, 300, selects on a per connection request basis what is the best technology for that request and its requirements, preferably taking also into account the status of the network resources”; and paragraph 40: “an optimal selection of the control plane is achieved, which takes into account specifics of the connection request”).
That is, when a client sends the same connection request, the dispatcher provides the same selection for connection. As for different connection request, the dispatcher provides different connections to satisfy the specific requirements of the each connection request.
Therefore, Fiorone teaches “determining that a second request type of the second request matches the first request type of the first request” and “determining that the second request type of the second request does not match the first request type of the first request” as recited.
Further note that, this process is done at the dispatcher which is a separate network element than the client (see e.g. Fiorone, paragraph 23: “a control plane dispatcher, whose role is to add the automation and the necessary intelligence to select the best technology and related control plane to be used for a given connection request… the client 302 is separated from the various technologies available in the multi-technology network and their control planes 304, 306 and 308 by the dispatcher 300”; and paragraph 54: “connection requests coming from an IP router (client) 302 is received by the dispatcher 300, processed as discussed above”).
That is, the system resources of the client are not used for the connection selection process.
Therefore, Fiorone teaches the limitation “without configuring additional system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications”.
Consequently, Fiorone teaches determining if “request types” are matching or not and provides a connection by the dispatcher “without configuring additional system resources for the particular one of the plurality of client applications” as recited in the claims, and the Examiner maintains the corresponding rejection. For more details, please see the rejection directed to claim 1 above.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pittman (US 9,591,099 B1) discloses a system that receives a SCSI request, determines the type of the request, and establishes a server connection according to the determined type of the request (see Fig. 9).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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 L Young can be reached at (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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194