DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The amendment filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1-18 in the amendment. Claims 19-21 are cancelled. Claims 22-24 are newly added.
Claims 1-18, and 22-24 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 and 22-24 filed on 06/22/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 7, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, lines 1-2, “the packet matching mechanism” should read “the default packet matching mechanism”;
Claim 7, lines 1-2, “the packet matching mechanism” should read “the default packet matching mechanism”;
Claims 23, and 24 use acronyms without stating what the acronyms stand for or represent. For example, claim 23 recites “BKAS” in line 4. It should read “Bouhoula-Kaaniche Addressing Scheme (BKAS)”. This needs to be done for each first occurrence of an acronym in the Claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a default packet matching mechanism configured to determine in claim 3, an adaptation mechanism configured to override in claim 5, and a filtering resolution mechanism configured to apply in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 8, and 18 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the addressing group” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the logic circuit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim limitation recites “them” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “them” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 14-17, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uppal et al. (US 2018/0097831 A1), hereinafter Uppal.
Regarding claim 1, Uppal discloses
An IP address allocating apparatus, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
encode disjoint address intervals by a disjoint address interval encoding scheme into addressing groups of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses ([0043]: the 128 bit network address is divided into 8 logical bit groups, each corresponding to 16 of the 128 bits of the network address);
the disjoint address intervals are encoded into a fixed-value part comprising most significant bits and an interval-encoding part comprising least significant bits ([0043]: the 128 bit network address is divided into 8 logical bit groups, each corresponding to 16 of the 128 bits of the network address; & [0043]: the first 48 bits of the network address may be used to represent a routing prefix; all or a portion of the remaining bits of a network address (e.g., other than the routing prefix) may be used to represent encoded DNS-level information),
wherein encoding is performed using deterministic bitwise operations based on predefined, non-adaptive rules ([0043]: the bits of group 4, representing a rule identifier, may identify a rule that describes the network address encoding format), and
wherein the encoded disjoint address intervals are nonoverlapping by construction ([0043]: the first 48 bits of the network address may be used to represent a routing prefix; all or a portion of the remaining bits of a network address (e.g., other than the routing prefix) may be used to represent encoded DNS-level information);
performing bit-by-bit comparison between the interval-encoding part and a corresponding portion of an IP address to determine a match or mismatch ([0043]: each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier representable in 16 bits or less, a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may directly represent that unique identifier within bit group 8; each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier that may or may not be representable in 16 bits or less (e.g., a domain name of arbitrary length), a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may represent that unique identifier as a hash value, generated by passing the unique identifier through a hashing function; on receiving a request to communicate with the network address, a receiving device (e.g., a content server 122) may verify the validity of the network address by confirming the digital signature (e.g., decrypting the digital signature using a corresponding cryptographic public key and comparing a resulting value to an independent hash of the same set of inputs; & [0052]: generate a corresponding hash using those remaining bits of the network address and a decrypted value representing a decryption of the digital signature using a public key of the DNS service, and verify that the decrypted value and generated hash match).
Regarding claim 2, Uppal discloses the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 1. Uppal further discloses
the disjoint address interval encoding scheme is Bouhoula-Kaaniche Addressing Scheme (BKAS), wherein the BKAS is such that each bit of each specified addressing group represents an inclusion or exclusion decision concerning an associated interval of the addressing group, and wherein the encoded intervals are disjoint ([0043]: the 128 bit network address is divided into 8 logical bit groups, each corresponding to 16 of the 128 bits of the network address; divided groups corresponds to inclusion decisions).
Regarding claim 3, Uppal discloses the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 1. Uppal further discloses
a default packet matching mechanism configured to determine match/mismatch outcomes for IP packets based on the addressing groups ([0043]: each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier representable in 16 bits or less, a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may directly represent that unique identifier within bit group 8; each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier that may or may not be representable in 16 bits or less (e.g., a domain name of arbitrary length), a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may represent that unique identifier as a hash value, generated by passing the unique identifier through a hashing function; on receiving a request to communicate with the network address, a receiving device (e.g., a content server 122) may verify the validity of the network address by confirming the digital signature (e.g., decrypting the digital signature using a corresponding cryptographic public key and comparing a resulting value to an independent hash of the same set of inputs; & [0052]: generate a corresponding hash using those remaining bits of the network address and a decrypted value representing a decryption of the digital signature using a public key of the DNS service, and verify that the decrypted value and generated hash match).
Regarding claim 4, Uppal discloses the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 3. Uppal further discloses
the packet matching mechanism is configured to apply one or more matching strategies including prioritization or combination of multiple addressing groups (FIG. 4, Group 6 and Group 7 is hint information; & [0043]: the bits of groups 6 and 7, representing hint information, may represent information informing a receiving device of how to handle requests to communicate with the network address, such as an identifier of a security certificate to utilize in creating a secure communication channel with an accessing computing device 102).
Regarding claim 9, Uppal discloses the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 1. Uppal further discloses
a filtering resolution mechanism configured to apply the addressing groups for IP packet filtering ([0043]: each routing prefix may be associated, for example, with one or more POPs 120, such that network packets addressed to any network address with a given prefix will be routed via the network 106 to the corresponding POP 120 to which the prefix is assigned).
Regarding claims 10, 16 and 22, the limitations of claims 10, 16, and 22 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, Uppal discloses the method of IP address allocating as described in claim 10. Uppal further discloses
receiving, by the processing circuitry, a plurality of BKAS encoded addressing groups (FIG. 4, Group 6 and Group 7 is hint information; & [0043]: the bits of groups 6 and 7, representing hint information, may represent information informing a receiving device of how to handle requests to communicate with the network address, such as an identifier of a security certificate to utilize in creating a secure communication channel with an accessing computing device 102); and
combining them into a single BKAS notation (FIG. 4, Group 6 and Group 7 is hint information; & [0043]: the bits of groups 6 and 7, representing hint information, may represent information informing a receiving device of how to handle requests to communicate with the network address, such as an identifier of a security certificate to utilize in creating a secure communication channel with an accessing computing device 102).
Regarding claim 14, Uppal discloses the method of IP address allocating as described in claim 10. Uppal further discloses
receiving a security policy comprising at least one directive including an address interval and an action ([0020]: a rule may specific that the penultimate 16 bits of a network address represent validity information for the network address, hint information, etc.; & [0043]: additional DNS-level information that may be included within a network address includes a rule identifier represented by bit group 4, validity information represented b bit group 5, and hint information represented by bit group 6; & [0011]: validity information (such as time-to-live, or “TTL,” information)…should the request be invalid (e.g., due to an expired TTL), the request can be handled as erroneous or potentially malicious, thus enabling the router or computing device to determine validity as a function of a network address, potentially without referencing external information regarding the request); and
translating the security policy into BKAS-encoded addressing groups according to BKAS encoding rules ([0022]: alter encoding rules for network addresses periodically; these rules may include stronger validity information, or may by altered more rapidly than network addresses of other, non-high risk distributions).
Regarding claim 15, Uppal discloses the method of IP address allocating as described in claim 14. Uppal further discloses
encoding the action into a bit mask corresponding to interval-encoding bits ([0020]: a rule may specify that the last 16 bits of a network address represent an identifier of a distribution associated with the network address (e.g., a domain name or other unique identifier of the distribution); a rule may further specify that the penultimate 16 bits of a network address represent validity information for the network address, hint information, etc.); and
performing a coherence check on the bit mask ([0020]: the use of public key cryptography to generate digital signatures for inclusion in a network address can provide substantial certainty that any valid network address (e.g., with a verifiable digital signature) was obtained by interaction with a DNS service that had access to a corresponding private key).
Regarding claim 17, Uppal discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as described in claim 16. Uppal further discloses
generating BKAS-encoded addressing groups from a security policy comprising a plurality of directives ([0013]: utilize one or more encoding rules to encode DNS-level data, such as a domain name to which a DNS request is directed, into a network address; & [0020]: the rules may specify, for example, which bits of a network address represent different types of DNS-level information, and how that information is represented).
Regarding claim 23, Uppal discloses
A method of configuring a network device, comprising:
receiving a security policy comprising one or more directives, each directive including an address interval and an action ([0020]: a rule may specific that the penultimate 16 bits of a network address represent validity information for the network address, hint information, etc.; & [0043]: additional DNS-level information that may be included within a network address includes a rule identifier represented by bit group 4, validity information represented by bit group 5, and hint information represented by bit group 6; & [0011]: validity information (such as time-to-live, or “TTL,” information)…should the request be invalid (e.g., due to an expired TTL), the request can be handled as erroneous or potentially malicious, thus enabling the router or computing device to determine validity as a function of a network address, potentially without referencing external information regarding the request); and
translating the security policy into one or more BKAS-encoded addressing groups according to BKAS encoding rules ([0022]: alter encoding rules for network addresses periodically; these rules may include stronger validity information, or may by altered more rapidly than network addresses of other, non-high risk distributions);
loading the BKAS-encoded addressing groups into the network device for IP packet filtering or routing ([0042]: the DNS service 112 loads encoding rules for encoding DNS-level information of a distribution into a network address).
Regarding claim 24, Uppal discloses
A network device for packet filtering or routing, comprising:
a memory storing one or more BKAS-encoded addressing groups, each BKAS-encoded addressing group comprising a fixed-value part and an interval-encoding part; and
processing circuitry configured to:
receive an IP packet ([0045]: receiving a data packet addressed to a network address including an encrypted bit group),
extract an IP address from the IP packet ([0045]: validate or verify integrity of the network address (e.g., using validity information encoded into the network address, such as a digital signature), before forwarding the data packet within the content delivery system 110 (e.g., utilizing the unencrypted network address)), and
compare the IP address with the BKAS-encoded addressing groups by bit-by-bit comparison of interval-encoding portions with corresponding portions of the IP address to determine a match or mismatch for filtering or routing the IP packet ([0043]: each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier representable in 16 bits or less, a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may directly represent that unique identifier within bit group 8; each distribution on the content delivery system 110 is associated with a unique identifier that may or may not be representable in 16 bits or less (e.g., a domain name of arbitrary length), a network address encoded according to the format of FIG. 4 may represent that unique identifier as a hash value, generated by passing the unique identifier through a hashing function; on receiving a request to communicate with the network address, a receiving device (e.g., a content server 122) may verify the validity of the network address by confirming the digital signature (e.g., decrypting the digital signature using a corresponding cryptographic public key and comparing a resulting value to an independent hash of the same set of inputs; & [0052]: generate a corresponding hash using those remaining bits of the network address and a decrypted value representing a decryption of the digital signature using a public key of the DNS service, and verify that the decrypted value and generated hash match).
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Warner et al. (US 6,289,015 B1), hereinafter Warner.
Regarding claim 5, Uppal discloses the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 3. Uppal does not explicitly disclose
an adaptation mechanism configured to override match or mismatch outcomes with routing or filtering actions.
However, Warner discloses
an adaptation mechanism configured to override match or mismatch outcomes with routing or filtering actions (Col. 1, lines 44-47: override logic overrides the address matching logic to cause the switching core to route the packet exclusively to the first port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Warner to Uppal, because Uppal discloses routing network packets addressed to any network address with a given prefix ([0043]) and Warner further suggests override address matching logic to route the packet to first port (Col. 1, lines 44-47).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Warner in the Uppal system in order to ensure communications.
Regarding claim 6, Uppal and Warner disclose the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 5. Uppal and Warner further disclose
the adaptation mechanism is configured to select between binary routing/filtering actions or ternary actions in which a third action is resolved as a default action (Warner: Col. 1, lines 44-47: override logic overrides the address matching logic to cause the switching core to route the packet exclusively to the first port). Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Warner, and further in view of Connery et al. (US 6,570,884 B1), hereinafter Connery.
Regarding claim 7, Uppal and Warner disclose the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 5. Uppal further discloses
the packet matching mechanism and the adaptation mechanism are implemented using logic circuits.
However, Connery discloses
the packet matching mechanism and the adaptation mechanism are implemented using logic circuits (Col. 2, lines 51-52: the packet filter comprises one or more match logic circuits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Connery to Uppal and Warner, because Uppal and Warner disclose all methods executed by general purpose computers or processors ([0056]) and Connery further suggests system comprises logic circuits (Col. 2, lines 51-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Connery in the Uppal and Warner system in order to provide reliable and stable performance.
Regarding claim 8, Uppal, Warner, and Connery disclose the IP address allocating apparatus as described in claim 7. Uppal, Warner, and Connery further disclose
the logic circuit for filtering is logically equivalent to a filter for a single addressing group (Connery: Col. 2, lines 51-52: the packet filter comprises one or more match logic circuits). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Hershkovich et al. (US 7,630,996 B1), hereinafter Hershkovich.
Regarding claim 12, Uppal discloses the method as described in claim 10. Uppal does not explicitly disclose
converting a CIDR/VLSM encoded IP address into BKAS encoded addressing groups.
However, Hershkovich discloses
converting a CIDR/VLSM encoded IP address into BKAS encoded addressing groups (Col. 17, lines 64-67: in this representation, the CIDR IPv4 addresses are converted into equivalent non-overlapping ranges, each having a closed lower boundary and an open upper boundary).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Hershkovich in Uppal because Uppal discloses IPv6 addresses represented in classless inter-domain routing or “CIDR” notation ([0032]) and Hershkovich further suggests converting CIDR IPv4 addresses into equivalent non-overlapping ranges (Col. 17, lines 64-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Hershkovich in the Uppal system in order to manage IP address easier.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Lee (US 4,813,038).
Regarding claim 13, Uppal discloses the method of IP address allocating as described in claim 10. Uppal does not explicitly disclose
decoding BKAS-encoded addressing groups into corresponding address, intervals and associated actions.
However, Lee discloses
decoding BKAS encoded addressing groups into corresponding address, intervals and associated actions (Claim 1: decoding means for replicating said packets by routing said packets to the addresses contained in the intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Lee to Uppal, because Uppal discloses decoding DNS-level data into or from network addresses ([0035]) and Lee further suggests routing packets to the addresses contained in the intervals (claim 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Lee in the Uppal system in order to enhance data communication.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uppal in view of Janakiraman et al. (US 2020/0059492 A1), hereinafter Janakiraman.
Regarding claim 18, Uppal discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as described in claim 17. Uppal does not explicitly disclose
ordering directives by source address interval;
when two or more directives can be unified to form an overall source address interval and merging compatible directives by identifying common prefixes to reduce a number of BKAS encoded addressing groups.
However, Janakiraman discloses
ordering directives by source address interval ([0021]: aggregating two or more of the respective set of permit rules based on a common prefix associated with two or more IP addresses corresponding to the source endpoints to yield one or more prefix-based rules associated with the endpoint);
when two or more directives can be unified to form an overall source address interval and merging compatible directives by identifying common prefixes to reduce a number of BKAS encoded addressing groups ([0021]: aggregating two or more of the respective set of permit rules based on a common prefix associated with two or more IP addresses corresponding to the source endpoints to yield one or more prefix-based rules associated with the endpoint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Janakiraman to Uppal, because Uppal discloses storing rules indicating how DNS-level data is encoded into network addresses ([0031]) and Janakiraman further suggests aggregate rules based on a common prefix associated with two or more IP addresses ([0021]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Janakiraman in the Uppal system in order to increase scalability as suggested by ([0093]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stark (US 2002/0007446 A1). Each IPv4 CIDR address must be converted to a Range.
Inoue et al. (US 6,128,256). Address information is encoded on at least one pre-group by forming an address area at intervals on at least one pre-group and recording information in a bit configuration on the address area.
Montvay et al. (US 2005/0231250 A1). The mapping of an address to be converted into the bit mask in that the bits of the address to be converted are distributed over those bits that are occupied with a nought in the bit mask ([0046]).
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 KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
08/26/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights