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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 5-10 are newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. 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 fully consider the references in 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
assigning the inbound request to an active thread (abstract idea mental process);
tracking a state of a connection associated with the inbound request using a directed acyclic graph state machine, wherein a session identifier associated with the generated outbound request is used, upon receipt of a response to the generated outbound request, to identify a state of the directed acyclic graph state machine associated with the connection and to set the directed acyclic graph state machine to the identified state (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
receiving an inbound request at a defined interface of a messaging router (generic computing components) within a software defined network (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
transmitting a response to the inbound request (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information);
generating an outbound request, for transmission into a software defined network, in accordance with the received inbound request using the active thread (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
transmitting the generated outbound request to a node within the software defined network determined in accordance with the inbound request and a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
receiving an inbound request at a defined interface of a messaging router within a software defined network (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
transmitting a response to the inbound request (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information);
generating an outbound request, for transmission into a software defined network, in accordance with the received inbound request using the active thread (extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
transmitting the generated outbound request to a node within the software defined network determined in accordance with the inbound request and a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving the response to the generated outbound request (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information); and
generating a secondary outbound request for transmission to a second node within the software defined network, both the second node and secondary outbound request determined in accordance with the inbound request, the identified state, and the response to the generated outbound request (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising generating (extra-solution activity of generating data/information) and transmitting an updated response to the inbound request in accordance with the response to the generated outbound request (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of generating an outbound request comprises generating a set of outbound requests in accordance with the received inbound request (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the session identifier and the response to the generated outbound request are used to activate a dormant or inactive directed acyclic graph state machine at the identified state (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein, upon receipt of the response to the generated outbound request, an active directed acyclic graph state machine is transitioned to the identified state (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the response to the inbound request comprises transmitting the response before the response to the generated outbound request is received (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein runtime variables associated with the active thread are stored in active memory to avoid input/output wait states during processing of the inbound request (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the active thread is one of a predefined number of active threads such that the inbound request is assigned to the active thread without buffering the inbound request pending initialization of a new thread (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising assigning additional computing, networking, and storage resources to a virtual machine or container associated with the messaging router to dynamically increase a number of threads used to manage connections (abstract idea mental process).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pg. 8-13 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In the Remarks on pg. 8, Applicant argues that the instant claims are directed to a specific improvement in the operation of a messaging router in a dynamic software-defined network, namely, identifying and restoring connection state using a directed acyclic graph state machine keyed by a session identifier associated with a generated outbound request and a later-received response. The examiner respectfully traverses. Initially, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is found in identifying a connection state using a directed acyclic graph state machine (emphasis added by the examiner). Hence, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to an abstract idea of identifying. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea (i.e., an improved step of identifying) is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. Finally “restoring connection state using a directed acyclic graph state machine keyed by a session identifier associated with a generated outbound request and a later-received response” is not found in the claims or the instant disclosure. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 9 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the instant claims are similar to the Enfish, SRI, and Finjan cases. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant merely recites the aforementioned cases, but fails to provide any explanation of how the fact patterns of any of the cases are the same as the instant application. It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement that the instant claims are similar to those in the above recited cases. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 9, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites tracking a state of a connection associated with the inbound request using a directed acyclic graph state machine, wherein a session identifier associated with the generated outbound request is used, upon receipt of a response to the generated outbound request, to identify a state of the directed acyclic graph state machine associated with the connection and to set the directed acyclic graph state machine to the identified state that recites a concrete router-side mechanism for connection-state restoration, not an abstract result or mental step. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to reiterate that “a concrete router-side mechanism for connection-state restoration” is not stated either in the instant claims or anywhere else in the instant disclosure. Applicant fails to explain how tracking a state of a connection using a DAG state machine to identify a state of the DAG state machine is “concrete”. It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility: The fact that a computer "necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm," is beside the point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an Applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art," Flook, supra, at 593, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, thereby eviscerating the rule that "‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable,’" Myriad, 133 S. Ct. 1289, 186 L. Ed. 2d 124, 133). Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claims provide a specific machine-implemented state-restoration technique used in router operation. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is very narrow and “specific” is not persuasive. A specific abstract idea is still an abstract idea and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 10-12, Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The instant disclosure does not explain how temporal overhead is reduced. Rather it simply makes an assertion that the temporal is reduced (i.e., merely describing the resulting outcome) absent an explanation as to how it is achieved or accomplished. 2106.05(f): Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 10-12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the human mind is not equipped to restore connection state in a dynamic software-defined network using a session identifier and a directed acyclic graph state machine upon receipt of a response to a generated outbound request. The examiner respectfully traverses. Again, nowhere in the instant disclosure is found anything to do with restoring a connection state. Overall, it appears that Applicant’s main point of argument is that the alleged improvement is found in the final step of the independent claim (i.e., tracking a state of a connection). However, as previously stated, the improvement rationale cannot be properly applied to the actual abstract idea limitation itself. In other words, the improvement rationale can only be applied to the additional limitations to determine whether the additional limitations provide an improvement that is significantly more than the abstract idea limitations. Applicant has misapplied, misconstrued, and conflated the various steps in the 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility analysis and has arrived at an incorrect conclusion that is in contradiction to the correct guidelines. In other words, Applicant begins with an erroneous premise which leads to a flawed conclusion. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
As per the remaining arguments presented in the Remarks on pg. 12-13 directed to the dependent claims, they rely on the same rationale as the aforementioned arguments and are therefore traversed using the same appropriate rationale as above. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Alagar et al. (US 2020/0099754) in at least [0069] disclose a user session object is a data structure that is specifically constructed to represent user activities within a user session. For example, a user session object may be a graphical summary of actions performed by a user during a web session. In some embodiments, a user session object comprises a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) object including multiple vertex objects that are linked together in sequence, wherein each of the vertex objects represents a web activity during a web session associated with the user. Each of the user session objects is associated with a user session ID and includes multiple dynamics content items that are linked together in sequence based on their associated timestamps.
Gali et al. (US 2022/0286360) disclose a software defined network for global network state management.
Nee et al. (US 11,184,269) disclose collecting route-based traffic metrics in a service-oriented system.
Brown (US 2020/0067829) discloses intelligent selection of channel interfaces.
Jilani et al. (US 2017/0214608) disclose flow based virtual network function orchestration.
Chakrabarti et al. (US 2016/0028603) disclose data path performance measurements using test messages in a software defined network.
Kahn et al. (US 2015/0365537) disclose control plane charging in a software defined network.
Hoffmann (US 2016/0234104) disclose handling of signaling messages on a data plane of a software defined network.
Chambliss et al. (US 2004/0267916) disclose regulating resource request from clients.
Dobric et al. (US 2004/0136325) disclose hardware implementation of independent verification of network layers.
Conclusion
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights