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 application filed February 2, 2024.
This application is a Continuation of: application 17931815 (now Patent 11929926).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 2/2/24 are acknowledged.
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 Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being as being unpatentable over:
Claims 1-20 of US Patent 11489770 in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193);
Claims 1-20 of US Patent 11929926 in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193);
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping and equivalent limitations which are obvious variations of each. All claim sets are drawn to conflict free change deployment.
For I: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 11489770 in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193):
As a representative example, the method claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the method claims 1 & 2 of Patent `770 which teaches: determining a configuration specifying at least one or more network addresses to be associated with traffic service (TS) threads; 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 addresses associated with the corresponding one or more traffic service (TS) threads, 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, the one or more traffic service (TS) threads share a memory space with the process, and processing, by the one or more traffic service (TS) threads, inbound traffic for a corresponding one or more of the one or more addresses associated with each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads.
Patent `770 fails to explicitly teach each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads have separate register stacks. However, Jagannathan teaches multi thread management where each thread has its own stack for processing (see Jagannathan, at least Abstract & column 13 lines 35-50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `770 based on the teachings of Jagannathan for the purpose of efficient resource utilization in process management.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `770, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
For II: as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 11929926 in view of Jagannathan et al (US Patent 5692193):
As a representative example, the device claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the device claims 1 & 2 of Patent `926 which teaches: determining a configuration specifying at least one or more network addresses to be associated with traffic service (TS) threads; 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 addresses associated with the corresponding one or more traffic service (TS) threads, 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, the one or more traffic service (TS) threads share a memory space with the process, and processing, by the one or more traffic service (TS) threads, inbound traffic for a corresponding one or more of the one or more addresses associated with each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads.
Patent `926 fails to explicitly teach each of the one or more traffic service (TS) threads have separate register stacks. However, Jagannathan teaches multi thread management where each thread has its own stack for processing (see Jagannathan, at least Abstract & column 13 lines 35-50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `926 based on the teachings of Jagannathan for the purpose of efficient resource utilization in process management.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `926, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
Without a terminal disclaimer, the patented claims will preclude issuance of the instant generic application.
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 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 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.
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 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 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
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
February 4, 2026