DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been reviewed in their entirety.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. While claim recites a “subnetwork identifier” as a separate element from a ”Global ID”, RFC 4193, expressly discloses non-overlapping bit fields for the Global ID and the Subnet ID, each occupying distinct portions of the address. A field occupying a distinct set of bits constitutes a separate structural element, regardless of how the claim labels it. The claim dos not require a physically separate address object or independently generated identifier, but merely that the identifiers comprise different sets of bits, which exactly what RFC 4193 teaches
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 13-14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Holland (US 9,825,822), November 21, 2017 in view of RFC 4193, “Unique Local Ipv6 Unicast Addresses”, October 2005
Regarding claim 1., Holland discloses a server, comprising:
a processor (Holland; see e.g. Column 34, Lines 60 - 65 “... one or more processors ...”); and
a non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions, the instructions, when loaded and executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Holland; see e.g. Column 34, Lines 60 - 65 “... one or more processors 1204 that are in communication with memory devices 1206 ...”; see e.g. Column Lines 47 – 59)
determine a plurality of machines in a network, each of the plurality of machines to have a same IPv4 address (Holland teaches overlaid virtual networks where nodes (i.e. machines) can be determined and subsequently assigned and the same IPV4 address;
see e.g. Column 10, Lines 9 – 25 “ ... Because computing node 305b is part of a distinct virtual network for entity Y, it can share the same virtual network address a computing node 305a without confusion ... IPv4 virtual networks are overlaid” )
for communication to a first machine of the plurality of machines to have the same IPv4 address, derive an IPv6 packet, the IPv6 packet to include an address, the address to include (Holland;
see e.g. Column 1, Lines 60 -62 “Fig. 3C illustrates an example underlying substrate network addresses so as to enable embedding of virtual network addresses for a virtual network”
see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 ):
the IPv4 address (Holland; see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 “... and a 32 bit identifier 372e to embed an IPv4 network address (e.g. , a virtual network address) ...”) ; and
a subnetwork identifier, the subnetwork identifier to identify a portion of the network in which the first machine is an only machine with the IPv4 address address (Holland;
see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 “... a 32 bit group of information 372b in this example that corresponds to a topology of a group of multiple computing does (e.g. a sub-network or other network portion) provided on behalf of the group whose identifier is indicated in information 372a ...”)
Holland does not expressly disclose:
a unique local address (ULA) header;
a global ID assigned to an organization;
wherein the subnetwork identifier includes a first level identifier to identify a first level subnetwork of the network and a second level identifier to identify a second level subnetwork within the first level subnetwork of the network, the second level identifier comprises a second set of bits separate from a first set of bits of the first level identifier, and wherein the first set of bits of the first level identifier and the second set of bits of the second level identifier are separate from the global ID.
However in analogous art Holland discloses:
a unique local address (ULA) header (RDC 4193, Section 3.1 Forma; The 8 bit prefix identifies the address as a Unique Local Address);
a global ID assigned to an organization (ULA) header (RDC 4193, Section 3.1 Format; The 40 bit Global ID is assigned by or generated for the organization – it acts as a top level routing scope)
wherein the subnetwork identifier includes a first level identifier to identify a first level subnetwork of the network and a second level identifier to identify a second level subnetwork within the first level subnetwork of the network, the second level identifier comprises a second set of bits separate from a first set of bits of the first level identifier, and wherein the first set of bits of the first level identifier and the second set of bits of the second level identifier are separate from the global ID ( RFC 4193 defines an address structure comprising an 8 bit prefix, a 40 bit Global ID assigned to an organization, and a 16 bit subnet ID identifying subnetworks within that organization. (see e.g. Section 3.2). These fields are fixed length and occupy non-overlapping sets of bits, allowing for structured network identification and internal segmentation. The address structure thus supports a configuration in which a first level subnetwork is identified by the Global ID and a second level subnetwork is identified by the subnet ID, with the subnet ID computing a separate set of bits from the Global ID. This structure reflects the claimed subnetwork identifier configuration, in which a second level identifier is nested within a first level identifier and consists of a second set of bits distinct from the first set;
See RFC 4193, Section 3.1, which clearly illustrates an address comprising a 40 bit Global ID and a 16 bit Subnet ID occupying distinct non-overlapping bit fields. The subnet id identifies subnetworks within the organization and thus corresponds to hierarchical subnet levels, such that respective portions of the subnet Id correspond to the claimed first level and second level identifiers. Because the Subnet ID field is entirely separate from the Global ID in the illustrated format, both the first set of bits and the second sets of bits are separate from the Global ID as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, the illustration in RFC 4193, Section 3.1 (Format) confirms that identifiers implemented using the subnet ID field are positioned in a bit field entirely separate from the 40 bit Global ID. Thus, to the extent the claimed first level identifier and second-level identifier correspond to respective portions of the subnet ID (as identifiers of the subnetworks within the organization) , both the first set of bits and the second set of bits are necessarily separate from the Global ID. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to partition the subnet ID to represent multiple levels of subnetworks, such that both the first-level and second-level identifiers are implemented as bit sets separate from the Global ID, as such hierarchical subdivision of address fields is a design choice for organizing network technology(KS Int’l CO. v. Teleflex Inc.))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate RFC 4193’s scheme. The motivation being the combined invention provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of managing network traffic.
Regarding claim 13, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to establish a network connection between a plurality of machines with the same IPv4 address (Holland; The network topology as defined and depicted in Fig. 3A is for the purposes of establishing a network connection between a plurality of machines with the same IPv4 address to communicate and process data as needed)
Regarding claim 14, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 13, Holland does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to establish the network connection between the plurality of machines with the same IPv4 address through derivation of unique IPv6 addresses that include the IPv4 address (Holland; see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47; “ ... the 64 bit interface identifier portion of the IPv6 address is configured to store several types of information ... embedded IPv4 network address ...”)
Regarding claim 15, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses The server of Claim 14, wherein the IPv4 address is untranslated as it appears in respective IPv6 addresses or is in its original form (The IPv4 address detailed above is embedded and not translated or altered;
see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 “... IPv4 network address may represent approximately 4.3 billion unique values ...”)
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Allan (US 2014/0115135)
Regarding claim 2, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 1, Holland does not expressly disclose wherein the address further includes a network identifier common to all machines of the network.
However in analogous art Allan discloses:
wherein the address further includes a network identifier common to all machines of the network (Allan; Allan teaches an address structure that includes a network identifier (the IPv6 locator prefix) that is common to a group of machines, which may comprise all machines of the network;
see e.g. Claim 23 “... IPv6 address containing a common IPv6 locator prefix and a ILNP identifier shared among the set of target VMs ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Allan’s network identifier scheme—extend the shared address structure – including the common IPv6 locator prefix—to all machines in the network in order to enable uniform routing behavior, simplify configuration, and streamline load balancing mechanisms using a single address space.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Allan and in further view of Cohn (US 2009/0249473)
Regarding claim 3, Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Allan discloses the server of Claim 1, Holland does not expressly disclose wherein the network identifier common to all machines of the network is 56 bits long.
However in analogous art Cohn discloses:
wherein the network identifier common to all machines of the network is 56 bits long (Cohn; Cohn teaches network id’s may span between 32 bits to 56 bits long depend upon the needs of one of ordinary skill in the art;
see e.g. [0039] “... network identifier may be other lengths ... 32 bits ... 56 bits ...’)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cohn’s network id length scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique to increase the efficiencies of routing data to remote entities.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Allan’s network identifier scheme—extend the shared address structure – including the common IPv6 locator prefix—to all machines in the network in order to enable uniform routing behavior, simplify configuration, and streamline load balancing mechanisms using a single address space
Claims 4-5 and 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara (US 2009/0154476)
Regarding claim 4, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 1, Holland does not expressly disclose wherein a plurality of machines have the same IPv4 address within the first level subnetwork.
However in analogous art Kobara discloses:
wherein a plurality of machines have the same IPv4 address within the first level subnetwork.
(Kobara; Kobara teaches subnetworks may be associated with levels;
see e.g. [0099] “... the first-level sub-overlay network 11-1 ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kobara’s subnetwork level scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique to increase efficiencies of managing network resources. The combined solution per Kobara provides for the subnetwork identifier includes a first level identifier and where the same IPv4 address may utilized based on the virtual addressing scheme
Regarding claim 5, Holland in view of in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara disclose the server of Claim 4, Holland does not expressly disclose wherein the first level identifier is 16 bits long.
The above feature is deemed applicant admitted prior art as the Examiner took Official Notice in previous office actions and there has been no traversal.
r it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement this known technique to optimize and/or increase the efficiencies of managing network resources.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kobara’s subnetwork level scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique to increase efficiencies of managing network resources.
Regarding claim 7, Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara discloses the server of Claim 1, wherein a plurality of machines have the same IPv4 address within the second level subnetwork (The combined solution per Kobara provides for the subnetwork identifier includes a second level identifier and where the same IPv4 address may utilized based on the virtual addressing scheme).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kobara’s subnetwork level scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique to increase efficiencies of managing network resources.
Regarding claim 8, Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara discloses The server of Claim 1, wherein a single machine has the IPv4 address within the second level subnetwork (The combined solution which includes levels of subnetworks does not place any constraints on the number of machines in a particular level of the subnetwork. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is readily able to implement any particular range of machines comprising at least a single machine with predictable results).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kobara’s subnetwork level scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique to increase efficiencies of managing network resources.
Regarding claim 9, Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara discloses the server of Claim 1 Holland in view of Kobara does not expressly disclose wherein the subnetwork identifier is 32 bits long.
The above feature is deemed applicant admitted prior art as the Examiner took Official Notice in previous office actions and there has been no traversal.
. Moreover one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate said well known technique to optimize and increase efficiencies of managing network resources
Regarding claim 10, Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara discloses the server of Claim 1, Holland in view of Kobara does not expressly disclose wherein the second level identifier is 16 bits long.
The above feature is deemed applicant admitted prior art as the Examiner took Official Notice in previous office actions and there has been no traversal.
Moreover one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate said well known technique to optimize and increase efficiencies of managing network resources
Regarding claim 12., Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Kobara disclose the server of Claim 1, wherein:
a plurality of machines have the same IPv4 address within the second level subnetwork (The combined solution per Kobara provides for the subnetwork identifier includes a second level identifier and where the same IPv4 address may utilized based on the virtual addressing scheme;
see e.g. [0096] – [0099]); and
a single machine has the IPv4 address within the first level subnetwork (The combined solution which includes levels of subnetworks does not place any constraints on the number of machines in a particular level of the subnetwork. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is readily able to implement any particular range of machines comprising at least a single machine with predictable results);
see e.g. [0096] – [0099].
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kobara’s scheme as scoping IPv4 address reuse to subnetwork levels provides for optimizing address space and supporting logical isolation; configuring a subnetwork to contain a single node is a predictable design choice , especially for special purpose or isolated nodes; and the modifications fall squarely within the system described in Kobara, requiring only routine adjustments to know structures and behaviors. These configurations to Kobara’s hierarchical overlay system would have yielded predictable results as per KSR Int’l CO. v Teleflex Inc. 550 u.S. 398 (2007)
Claims 16 and 17 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Freeze-Skret (US 2015/0188938)
Regarding claim 16, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to issue a plurality of commands, each command to map a subnetwork of the network according to respective instances of the subnetwork identifier (Holland;
See e.g. Column 19, Liens 25 – 52 “The initial 64 – bit network portion of the address also includes a 32 bit group of information 372b in this example that corresponds to topology of group of multiple computing nodes (e.g. a sub-network or other network) portion) provided on behalf of the group whose identifier is indicated in information 372a ...”
See e.g. Column 30, Lines 17 – 19 “... virtualized computing instances ...”
The Examiner notes command(s) are inherently present as they system is under control of a processor and memory with instructions to facilitate conventional commands) , each subnetwork capable of including a machine with the same IPv4 address (see e.g. Column 10, Lines 9 – 25 “ ... Because computing node 305b is part of a distinct virtual network for entity Y, it can share the same virtual network address a computing node 305a without confusion ... IPv4 virtual networks are overlaid”
The Examiner notes the commands are inherently present as the said steps are executed under the guise of a processor and instructions embedded in a conventional memory)
Although Holland teaches unique IPv4 values (see e.g. Column 20, Liens 25 – 27 “... embedded IPv4 network address 4.3 billion unique values), Holland does not expressly disclose:
, the command further to include a mask to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address.
However in analogous art Freeze-Skret discloses:
masking and subnets (Freeze-Skret; Freeze-Skret teaches the utilization of masking and subnets for creating IP addresses;
see e.g. [0049] “... support the ability to configure the following networking parameters ... (i) IP addresses (ii) Subnet Mask ...)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Freeze-Skret conventional masking associating with subnets. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique for increasing efficiencies of managing network resources.
Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Freeze-Skret discloses:
the command further to include a mask to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address (The combined solution provides for masking to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address;
The Examiner notes the commands are inherently present as the said steps are executed under the guise of a processor and instructions embedded in a conventional memory)
Regarding claim 17, Holland in view of RFC 4193 discloses the server of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are further to cause the processor to:
receive a command to map a subnetwork connected to the server, the server between the subnetwork and an origin of the command(Holland;
See e.g. Column 19, Liens 25 – 52 “The initial 64 – bit network portion of the address also includes a 32 bit group of information 372b in this example that corresponds to topology of group of multiple computing nodes (e.g. a sub-network or other network) portion) provided on behalf of the group whose identifier is indicated in information 372a ...”
See e.g. Column 30, Lines 17 – 19 “... virtualized computing instances ...”)
See e.g. Fig. 3A
See e,g, Column 12 Lines 41 – 46 “... mapping information 213
The Examiner notes the commands are inherently present as the said steps are executed under the guise of a processor and instructions embedded in a conventional memory), wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address (see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 “... IPv4 network address may represent approximately 4.3 billion unique values ...”)
, the subnetwork to include the subnet of machines (see e.g. Column 25, Lines 65 – 68 “... subnets ...”
See e.g., Column 24, Lines 17 – 28 “ ... subsets of the computing nodes ...”);
issue an identifying command to each machine on the subnetwork to obtain an IPv4 address of each machine on the subnetwork (Holland; This feature is inherently present as the machines communicated with each other with said addressing scheme;
The Examiner notes the commands are inherently present as the said steps are executed under the guise of a processor and instructions embedded in a conventional memory);
build an IPv6 address for each machine on the subnetwork including the IPv4 address of each machine on the subnetwork (Holland;
see e.g. Column 19, Lines 9 -Column 20, Line 47 “... topology of a group of multiple computing nodes(e.g. a sub-network or other network portions) ... IPv6 address is configured ... to embed an IPv4 network address .. virtual subnetting ...”)
see e.g. Column 12, Lines 41 – 45 “.. obtains an IPv6 actual physical network address corresponding to that virtual source hardware address (e.g. from a stored entry in mapping information 312 ..”); and
provide the IPv6 addresses to the origin of the command (Holland; see e.g. Column 20, Lines 41 – 45 “.. obtains an IPv6 actual physical network address corresponding to that virtual source hardware address (e.g. from a stored entry in mapping information 312 ..”).
Holland does not expressly disclose:
the command to include a mask to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address
However in analogous art Freeze-Skret discloses:
masking and subnets (Freeze-Skret; Freeze-Skret teaches the utilization of masking and subnets for creating IP addresses;
see e.g. [0049] “... support the ability to configure the following networking parameters ... (i) IP addresses (ii) Subnet Mask ...)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Freeze-Skret conventional masking associating with subnets. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique for increasing efficiencies of managing network resources.
Holland in view of RFC 4193 and in further view of Freeze-Skret discloses:
the command to include a mask to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address(The combined solution provides for masking to include a subnet of machines wherein each machine has a unique IPv4 address;
The Examiner notes the commands are inherently present as the said steps are executed under the guise of a processor and instructions embedded in a conventional memory)
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights