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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered, and are partially persuasive. Applicant’s claim amendments and cancelled claims have obviated the need for the previously made objections to the specification and rejections under 35 USC 112. These objections and rejections have responsively been withdrawn. On pages 8 – 10, Applicant addresses the rejections made utilizing the teachings of Pazi. Applicant argues that Pazi fails to show “multiple NS referral candidates”. Applicant’s argument is persuasive. However, this amended language raises issues regarding both definiteness and written description support. These issues are discussed in further detail below.
Continuing on page 10, Applicant presents an argument that depends on the assertion that “claims 2, 6 and 8 are dependent on an allowable base claim as discussed above”. However, claims 2 and 6 have been cancelled, and claim 8 is an independent claim. There are presently no dependent claims. The arguments on pages 11 – 12, directed to cancelled claims 3 and 5, are similarly unpersuasive.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter for the reasons given below in the 35 USC 112 written description rejection. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite: “wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver”. Applicant’s specification fails to provide written description support for this language. Neither “NS referral candidates” nor “referral candidates” are mentioned in applicant’s specification, much less where they are “associated with [a] DNS resolver”. “Candidate” only appears a single time in the specification; however, this recitation is in the Background section discussing prior art, and is not provided in a manner that provides any association with a “NS referral”. Claim 1 has been further amended to recite: “responsive to a successful TCP connection, receiving a retransmission of the UDP DNS query from the client”. This language is also absent from applicant’s specification. “Retransmission”, e.g., is wholly absent. While “retransmit” appears a single time, it is also in the Background section discussing prior art techniques, and absent from any discussion regarding the behavior of the present invention. Furthermore, the singular recitation of “retransmit” is not provided in the same context as the amended claim language (i.e., being “responsive to a successful TCP connection”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, each of said claims recites language analogues to that addressed above appearing in claim 1, and thus suffers from similar issues.
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, 7, and 8 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. Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite “NS referral candidates”. This language is absent from Applicant’s specification. Furthermore, the language does not appear to be a term of art, as evidenced by zero search results being returned for a query in the USPTO SEARCH application (which considers millions of documents across multiple databases), as well as zero search results being returned in search engines such as Google and Bing. The lack of any recitation in the specification establishing the scope for a “NS referral candidate" and the lack of any discussion in any other document utilizing this term leads to it having an unclear an indefinite scope.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, each of said claims recites language analogues to that addressed above appearing in claim 1, and thus suffers from similar issues.
In order to perform a complete examination, the above language has been interpreted broadly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pazi (US-20030070096-A1) in view of Na (US-20100138921-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pazi shows a computer-implemented method in a transparent ([115]) domain name system (DNS) proxy ([18,30,63] discussing a “guard device”) on a data communication network, for protecting against distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks on a DNS resolver from a client without notification to the DNS resolver ([63]), the method comprising:
receiving a user datagram protocol (UDP) DNS query from a client ([32,114]); challenging the client by sending back a DNS response with a truncated (TC) bit set to 1 ([115]);
responsive to the client sending back a TCP synchronize (SYN) frame ([20,32,115-116]), attempting to establish a transmission control protocol (TCP) connection with the client from the transparent DNS proxy ([115-116]);
responsive to a successful TCP connection ([115], see “the client initiates a TCP three-way handshake”), receiving a retransmission of the UDP DNS query ([114] discussing where the original query is “over UDP”) from the client over the TCP connection ([118] see “a TCP connection is established” and the client can “resend its original DNS request over the TCP connection”) and forwarding the UDP DNS query from the transparent DNS proxy to the DNS resolver on behalf of the client ([118] where the guard device receives the client request an then “the guard device submits a DNS request to DNS server 22, asking for the information requested by the client” which may use UDP);
responsive to receiving a DNS response from the DNS resolver, converting the UDP DNS response to a TCP response forwarded to the client ([15,32,118], where conversion is implicit given the existing TCP connection with the client and both the traditional use of UDP discussed in communication with the DNS sever and the explicit support for use of UDP in the DNS exchange noted in the cited paragraphs, also as noted in [118], “the guard device returns an appropriate DNS response to the client over the existing TCP connection”); and
closing the TCP connection ([118]; “the TCP connection may then be closed”) with the client (as [118] notes the TCP connection “is established between the client and the guard device”). Pazi does not show wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver. Na shows wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver ([25] discussing access to “a plurality of name servers” and selection of “a name server to provide a name service to the plurality of name servers to serve requests from multiple DNSs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the multiple DNS devices of Na in order to better ensure reliable request fulfillment by utilizing multiple, redundant devices and thus better ensure that a responsive device is available and functional when a request needs to be serviced.
Regarding claim 7, Pazi shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium in a domain protecting against ([18,30,63] discussing a “guard device”) distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks on a DNS resolver from a client without notification to the DNS resolver ([63]), the method comprising:
receiving a user datagram protocol (UDP) DNS query from a client ([32,114]); challenging the client by sending back a DNS response with a truncated (TC) bit set to 1 ([115]);
responsive to the client sending back a TCP synchronize (SYN) frame ([20,32,115-116]), attempting to establish a transmission control protocol (TCP) connection with the client from the transparent DNS proxy ([115-116]);
responsive to a successful TCP connection ([115], see “the client initiates a TCP three-way handshake”), receiving a retransmission of the UDP DNS query ([114] discussing where the original query is “over UDP”) from the client over the TCP connection ([118] see “a TCP connection is established” and the client can “resend its original DNS request over the TCP connection”) and forwarding the UDP DNS query from the transparent DNS proxy to the DNS resolver on behalf of the client ([118] where the guard device receives the client request an then “the guard device submits a DNS request to DNS server 22, asking for the information requested by the client” which may use UDP);
responsive to receiving a DNS response from the DNS resolver, converting the UDP DNS response to a TCP response forwarded to the client ([15,32,118], where conversion is implicit given the existing TCP connection with the client and both the traditional use of UDP discussed in communication with the DNS sever and the explicit support for use of UDP in the DNS exchange noted in the cited paragraphs, also as noted in [118], “the guard device returns an appropriate DNS response to the client over the existing TCP connection”); and
closing the TCP connection ([118]; “the TCP connection may then be closed”) with the client (as [118] notes the TCP connection “is established between the client and the guard device”). Pazi does not show wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver. Na shows wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver ([25] discussing access to “a plurality of name servers” and selection of “a name server to provide a name service to the plurality of name servers to serve requests from multiple DNSs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the multiple DNS devices of Na in order to better ensure reliable request fulfillment by utilizing multiple, redundant devices and thus better ensure that a responsive device is available and functional when a request needs to be serviced.
Regarding claim 8, Pazi shows a domain name system (DNS) proxy ([18,30,63] discussing a “guard device”) on a data communication network, for protecting against distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks on a DNS resolver from a client without notification to the DNS resolver ([63]), the DNS proxy comprising:
a processor (); a network interface communicatively coupled to the processor and to a data communication network (); a memory, communicatively coupled to the processor and storing source code that, when executed by the processor, comprises:
a first module to receive a user datagram protocol (UDP) DNS query from a client ([32,114]); a first module to challenge the client by sending back a DNS response with a truncated (TC) bit set to 1 ([115]);
a third module to, to the client sending back a TCP synchronize (SYN) frame ([20,32,115-116]), attempt to establish a transmission control protocol (TCP) connection with the client from the transparent DNS proxy ([115-116]);
a forth module to, responsive to a successful TCP connection ([115], see “the client initiates a TCP three-way handshake”), receiving a retransmission of the UDP DNS query ([114] discussing where the original query is “over UDP”) from the client over the TCP connection ([118] see “a TCP connection is established” and the client can “resend its original DNS request over the TCP connection”) and forwarding the UDP DNS query from the transparent DNS proxy to the DNS resolver on behalf of the client ([118] where the guard device receives the client request an then “the guard device submits a DNS request to DNS server 22, asking for the information requested by the client” which may use UDP);
a fifth module to, responsive to receiving a DNS response from the DNS resolver, convert the UDP DNS response to a TCP response forwarded to the client ([15,32,118], where conversion is implicit given the existing TCP connection with the client and both the traditional use of UDP discussed in communication with the DNS sever and the explicit support for use of UDP in the DNS exchange noted in the cited paragraphs, also as noted in [118], “the guard device returns an appropriate DNS response to the client over the existing TCP connection”); and
wherein the third module closes the TCP connection ([118]; “the TCP connection may then be closed”) with [the] client (as [118] notes the TCP connection “is established between the client and the guard device”). Pazi does not show wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver. Na shows wherein the client has access to multiple NS referral candidates associated with the DNS resolver ([25] discussing access to “a plurality of name servers” and selection of “a name server to provide a name service to the plurality of name servers to serve requests from multiple DNSs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the multiple DNS devices of Na in order to better ensure reliable request fulfillment by utilizing multiple, redundant devices and thus better ensure that a responsive device is available and functional when a request needs to be serviced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Ouyang (Ouyang et al. English translation of CN_113709271_A_I. (Year: 2021)) – see in particular the Abstract and page 2 lines 57-71, and
Elsloo (US-20230421530-A1).
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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454