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
This action is responsive to amendment filed May 15, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
The Double Patenting rejection in the Office Action dated 2/23/2026 still stands, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/15/26, regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on Mehra in view of Jagannathan in view of Zhang, as presented below.
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 1,2,5-7,9-12,15-17,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al (US Publication 20160182379) in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193) in further view of Zhang et al (US Publication 20150381478).
In reference to claim 1, Mehra a method comprising:
determining, by a process executing on at least one processor, a configuration specifying at least one or more bound network addresses to be associated with traffic service (TS) threads; (see ¶s 34,35 & ¶ 43 lines 10-16, where Mehra teaches determining a mapping configuration specifying processing threads and associated packet destination addresses)
instantiating, by the process, one or more traffic service (TS) threads, each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads configured to process traffic for a respective one or more bound network addresses associated with the corresponding one or more traffic service (TS) threads, (see ¶s 40,43,95, where Mehra teaches instantiating threads to process the incoming packets related to the destination addresses) wherein:
each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads is configured with one or more network services corresponding to a respective one or more of the one or more bound network addresses, (see ¶s 49,89, where Mehra teaches the threads are configured with network services for processing the packets)
processing, by the one or more traffic service (TS) threads, inbound traffic for a corresponding one or more of the one or more bound network addresses associated with each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads (see ¶s 36,47, where Mehra teaches processing the incoming packets utilizing each of the threads and based on the mapped destination addresses).
Mehra fails to explicitly teach the one or more traffic service (TS) threads share a memory space with the process, and each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads have separate register stacks. However, Jagannathan teaches multi thread management in virtual processors, where the threads share a memory space, and each thread has its own stack for processing (see Jagannathan, at least Abstract & column 13 lines 35-50 & column 21 lines 26-45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Jagannathan for the purpose of efficient resource utilization in process and thread management.
Mehra fails to explicitly teach each of the one or more network services is assigned one or more proxy ports corresponding to the respective one or more bound network addresses. However, Zhang teaches network service management and traffic management (see Zhang, at least Abstract), and discloses network services mapped to proxy ports and respective identifiers (see Zhang, at least ¶s 20 & 29-31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Zhang for the purpose of managing network services and their respective traffic.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Jagannathan, see at least column 13 lines 5-25 and column 21 lines 13-45, which teaches. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Jagannathan in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Mehra, see at least ¶s 40,43-45, which teaches threads configured to process a subset of addresses.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Mehra, see at least ¶s 43,47,95, which teaches instantiating the threads based on configuring the threads to process traffic packets.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Mehra, see at least ¶s 40,45,46, which teaches destination characteristics, and threads configured to process a subset of the addresses.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Mehra, see at least ¶s 45,52, which teaches the threads packet processing based on statistics and thresholds.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Mehra, see at least ¶s 49,50, which teaches forwarding the packets to the destinations.
Claims 11,12,15-17,19,20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1,2,5-7,9,10 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3,4,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al (US Publication 20160182379) in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193) in further view of Zhang et al (US Publication 20150381478) in further view of Dinan et al (US Publication 20160072908).
In reference to claim 3, Mehra fails to explicitly teach the threads share one or more libraries. However, Dinan teaches multithreaded management for processing communication traffic, and discloses the threads sharing libraries (see Dinan, at least Abstract & ¶s 26-29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Dinan for the purpose of efficient resource utilization in process and thread management.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Dinan, see at least ¶s 20,26-29, which teaches processing internet communication utilizing proxy libraries. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Dinan in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 3.
Claim 13-14 is a slight variation of the rejected claims 3-4 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 8,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehra et al (US Publication 20160182379) in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193) in further view of Zhang et al (US Publication 20150381478) in further view of Mishra et al (US Publication 20200128414).
In reference to claim 8, Mehra teaches the multiple sets of traffic threads and destination addresses as shown above. Mehra fails to explicitly teach a first thread for residential addresses, and a second thread for commercial addresses. However, Mishra teaches processing different traffic communication in accordance to residential destination communications and business destination communication (see Mishra, at least Abstract & ¶s 59,83). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mehra based on the teachings of Mishra for the purpose of efficient communication management.
Claim 18 is a slight variation of the rejected claim 8 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights