DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is in response to the communication filed on 06/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding receiving, by a computing device and from a client device of a plurality of client devices, a message that complies with a first communication protocol. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Higuchi teach, “the IPv4 multicast data packet is received from the LAN3”, (see para. 86 and Fig. 15); for further clarification Higuchi teach, “an IPv6 Client 14001 in a network (LAN1) being able to receive and communicate information with an IPv4 Sever 14006 on another network (LAN4) having 2 different protocols IPv6 and IPv4, respectively to communicate sending Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) packet (an IPv6 protocol), to be received in Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) format (used on IPv4 protocol). Also, it is disclosed the opposite situation IPv4 Client-IPv6 Server. Higuchi describes the entire detailed process of conversion in the explanation of Figs 15-17, “The IP header conversion control module 13004 translates the IPv4 multicast data packet into the IPv6 multicast data packet”. The examiner respectfully disagrees since in the applicant’s claim 1 there is no defined or detailed first communication protocol, in fact the Applicant defines, “In some embodiments, element 326 may enforce an Internet Group Management Protocol - Multicast Listener Discovery (IGMP-MLD) interworking function together with a de-capsulation function of received multicast IPv4-in-IPv6 packets” (applicant’s specification para 31, and Fig. 3), which is precisely what Higuchi teach in both cases in details (see para.79-94), therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language the examiner equates Higuchi’s teachings to disclose this concept. Thus, Higuchi in view of Huitema still meet the scope of the limitations.
B. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding sending to the client device via the communication path, a version of the response that complies with the first communication protocol. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Higuchi teach, “When the MLD packet is received from the LAN1, the IPv6 router 14002 recognizes the fact that the client exists on the LAN1 side. The IPv6 router 14002 routes the IPv6 multicast data packet sent from the IPv6 server 14003 to the LAN1” (see para. 92); for further clarification Higuchi teach”; for further clarification Higuchi teach, para. 93-94, “The LAN1 control module 13008 sends the IPv4 multicast data packet to the LAN3.
The IPv4 client 14004 receives the IPv4 multicast data packet from the LAN3”. The Examiner notes that Higuchi translate the IPv6 packet into a IPv4 multicast packet and the router routes the file through the network to the client. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Higuchi to teach this concept.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re LongL 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11736593. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims merely broaden the claim limitations of the patented case by omitting certain claim limitations.
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Pat. No. 11736593 teach, a method comprising:
Limitations of Claim 1 of the Instant Application.
Limitations of Claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 11736593.
receiving, by a computing device and from a client device of a plurality of client devices, a message that complies with a first communication protocol;
sending, to a source associated with a multicast group, a version of the message that complies with a second communication protocol of the multicast group;
receiving, after sending the version of the message that complies with the second communication protocol, a response that indicates a communication path to the client device; and
sending, to the client device via the communication path, a version of the response that complies with the first communication protocol.
receiving, by a computing device and from a client device of a plurality of client devices, a message that complies with a first communication protocol;
sending, to a source associated with a multicast group, a version of the message that complies with a second communication protocol of the multicast group;
receiving, after sending the version of the message that complies with the second communication protocol, a response that indicates a communication path, of a plurality of communication paths, of the multicast group; and
sending, to the client device, based on a mapping between the plurality of communication paths and the plurality of client devices, and using the communication path, a version of the response that complies with the first communication protocol.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 the limitations of claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20, respectively, are rejected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over of Higuchi et al. (U.S. Pub. 20050249213) in view of Huitema (U.S. Pub. 20040190549), further, in view of Hu et al. (EPO. Pub. EP2658168).
Regarding claim 1 Higuchi disclose a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a client device of a plurality of client devices, a message that complies with a first communication protocol, para. 86, “the IPv4 multicast data packet is received from the LAN3”,
sending, to a source associated with a multicast group, a version of the message that complies with a second communication protocol of the multicast group, para. 86, Fig. 15, “When the IPv4 multicast data packet is received from the LAN3, the LAN1 control module 13008 of the LAN control apparatus 13001 sends it to the IPv4-to-IPv6 transmission/reception switch control module 13006. The IPv4-to-IPv6 transmission/reception switch control module 13006 sends the IPv6 multicast data packet to the LAN2”
sending, based on a mapping between a communication path and the client device para. 87, “The IPv6 client 14001 receives the IPv6 multicast data packet from the LAN1. Thus, the multicast communication from the IPv4 server 14006 to the IPv6 client 14001 is established”, sending to the client device via the communication path, a version of the response that complies with the first communication protocol para. 92, “When the MLD packet is received from the LAN1, the IPv6 router 14002 recognizes the fact that the client exists on the LAN1 side. The IPv6 router 14002 routes the IPv6 multicast data packet sent from the IPv6 server 14003 to the LAN1”.
Higuchi does not specifically disclose receiving, after sending the version of the message that complies with the second communication protocol. However, Huitema discloses, para. 21, “the relay, upon receiving the IPv6 response, instead determines that the NAT is a cone NAT, the IPv4 response need not be routed via the server, but may be transmitted directly to the IPv4 client”.
Higuchi and Huitema does not specifically disclose a response that indicates a communication path to the client device. However, Hu discloses, para. 21, “generate a path computation response message carrying the path information and the transmission type; and send the path computation response message to the path computation client”.
Higuchi, Huitema and Hu are analogous because they pertain to the field of data networks communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Huitema and Hu in the system of Higuchi so the information transmitted in a network can find its way between the source and the destination nodes even when they are communicating with different protocols and allowing efficient communication between the source and the destination. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the traffic control and traffic efficiency on a network for optimal resource allocation.
Regarding claim 2 Higuchi disclose, wherein the first communication protocol comprises a first version of Internet Protocol para. 15, “the IPv4 multicast packet is inputted”, and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a second version of Internet Protocol para. 16, “the IPv6 multicast packet is inputted”.
Regarding claim 6 Higuchi does not specifically disclose, wherein receiving the message comprises receiving the message via the communication path. However, Huitema discloses, para. 21, “the IPv4 client may determine the IPv4 address and port of the relay based on the source IPv4 address and port in the IPv4 response”.
Higuchi, Huitema and Hu are analogous because they pertain to the field of data networks communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Huitema in the system of Higuchi and Hu so the information transmitted in a network can find its way between the source and the destination nodes even when they are communicating with different protocols. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the traffic control and traffic efficiency on a network.
Claim 8 recites an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 13 the limitations of claims 9 and 13, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2 and 6, respectively.
Claim 15 recites a system corresponding to the method of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 16 and 20 the limitations of claims 16 and 20, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 2 and 6, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if they overcome the Double Patenting rejection and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–272–8300.
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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471