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 filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument by reciting written opinion of the international searching authority. Examiner respectfully disagrees, The WOISA/IPRP is not a final, binding decision on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The examiner must perform a separate, independent examination for the U.S. national phase, as the standards for patentability (e.g., non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103) may differ from international standards. Examiner is not strictly bound to follow the written opinion or international preliminary report on patentability (IPRP) from a WOISA (Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority). While international reports are considered in examination, the examiner must conduct an independent examination based on US law and MPEP guidelines (please refer to MPEP 2141, this section provides that examiners are to use their own judgment based on U.S. law, even though they consider foreign search reports and examination).
In regard to the 112 rejections, examiner respectfully disagrees, it is unclear how the destination address of the discover message could identify a first of a plurality of addresses for potential use by the claimant. For the purpose of examination examiner assumes that the first identifying address is the recipient or the destination where the discover message will be destined.
For the purpose of examination, examiner assumes “claimant” is an entity that send the request to the destination for a plurality of addresses.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior does not discloses the limitations of claim 1, examiner respectfully disagrees, Olivia discloses the concept of node (i.e. claimant) sends discover message to proxy via address of proxy (i.e. first identifying address), for range of addresses (see Olivia 0099). The proxy send offer message with a range of addresses (Oliva 0100). Therefore Oliva teaches the claims invention in claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to claims 2-4,7-10,13-16, the arguments are similar to the argument of claim 1. Therefore, are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4,7-10,13-16 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.
Claims 1, 7, 13 recites, “send a first discover message to a first identifying address, the first identifying address identifying a first plurality of addresses for potential use by the claimant”, it is unclear how the destination address of the discover message could identify a first of a plurality of addresses for potential use by the claimant. For the purpose of examination examiner assumes that the first identifying address is the recipient or the destination where the discover message will be destined.
Dependent claims 2-4,8-10,14-16 are depended on the rejected claims 1,7,13 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by De la Olivia et al (us 2022/0224671) (hereinafter Oliva).
As regarding claim 1, Oliva discloses a port enabled to send messages to a computer network and configured to send a first discover message to a first identifying address (see Oliva 0099, the device send discover message to address of the proxy, the device inherently has port/s, Oliva 0098 describes device 202a-c has configured with transmitting and receiving data via wired connections), the first identifying address identifying a first plurality of addresses for potential use by the claimant as network source or destination addresses (see Oliva 0100, offer message with a range of addresses sends from the proxy to the device).
As regarding claim 2, Oliva discloses the first identifying address is a multicast address (see Oliva 0101-0102, multicast addresses).
As regarding claim 3, Oliva discloses the claimant is further configured to enable sending a data message whose source or destination address is within the first plurality of addresses identified in the first discover message (see Oliva 0104-0105, the device transmits a message to other nodes, also see Oliva 0106, transmit discover message with the range of mac addresses).
As regarding claim 4, Oliva discloses a port enabled to receive messages from the computer network and wherein the claimant is further configured to (see Oliva 0098 describes device 202a-c has configured with transmitting and receiving data via wired connections) in response to receiving a claimed message indicating that the first plurality of addresses, identified by the first identifying address, is unavailable (see Oliva 0100, 0105, defend message indicate address are not available), send a second discover message to a second identifying address, the second identifying address being a multicast address identifying a second plurality of addresses for potential use by the claimant as network source or destination addresses (see Oliva 0100, 0105, re-transmit discover message/send another discover message).
As regarding claims 7-10, 13-16, the limitations of claims 7-10, 13-16 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1-4 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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 DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459