DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 04-30-2024.
Continuation Application
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/898,924, and names an inventor or inventors named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes a continuation claiming benefit of the filing date of June 14, 2022 which is acknowledged.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. under 35 U.S.C. 120 (continuation) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date:
a) The later filed Application is filed prior to the patent issued of the earlier application. (copendency; MPEP 211.01(b) (I))
b) At least one common inventor (MPEP 201.07)
c) The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. It is also noted, that applicant has filed a certified copy on 05-20-2024 as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-30-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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. See 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 nonstatutory 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); 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
For faster processing of Terminal Disclaimer 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Analysis
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,856 the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,001,856 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and as such anticipates claims 1-20 of the instant application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as illustrated by the table below, each feature claimed is directly mapped and taught by the cited prior art that is commonly owned. For example, analysis of the claims represented below are directed to a first component and second component for a network device . Furthermore, the two components are described a receiving a packet that that includes a timestamp and a first unique identifier (ID). Lastly, these claims further include how the network device is configured with a first functionality data and second functionality and whether to continue operating the two components. Thus, a later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus).” ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claims 8, and 15 are directed to similar features recited in claim 1, thus the same rational already presented for claim 1 applies.
INSTANT APPLICATION 18/650,798
U.S. Patent 12,001,856
1. A method comprising:
deploying, by a network controller and to a network device, a first component and a second component to run concurrently on the network device,
wherein the second component is an upgraded version of the first component, and
wherein the first component receives a first instance of a packet routed to the network device, the first instance of the packet having a timestamp and a first identifier (ID), and the second component receives a second instance of the packet routed to the network device, the second instance of the packet having the timestamp and a second ID;
receiving, by the network controller and from the network device, first functionality data for the first component and second functionality data for the second component; and based at least in part on the first functionality data and the second functionality data, determining, by the network controller, whether to continue operating the first component or the second component on the network device.
1. A method comprising:
adding, to a network device that includes a first operating system (OS) component, a second OS component to run concurrently on the network device with the first OS component,
the network device being part of a disaggregated network; transmitting, from the first OS component and to the second OS component, data comprising network routing information; storing the data in a memory of the second OS component; registering the second OS component with a routing infrastructure of the network device to enable the second OS component to receive packets that are routed to the first OS component; receiving a packet routed to the first OS component; adding a timestamp and a first unique identifier (ID) to a first instance of the packet and transmitting the first instance of the packet to the first OS component; adding the timestamp and a second unique ID to a second instance of the packet and transmitting the second instance of the packet to the second OS component;
transmitting first functionality data from the first OS component to a controller; transmitting second functionality data from the second OS component to the controller; and comparing the first functionality data with the second functionality data using a validation template to determine whether to replace the first OS component with the second OS component in the network device.
8. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
deploying, by a network controller and to a network device, a first component and a second component to run concurrently on the network device,
wherein the second component is an upgraded version of the first component, and
wherein the first component receives a first instance of a packet routed to the network device, the first instance of the packet having a timestamp and a first identifier (ID), and the second component receives a second instance of the packet routed to the network device, the second instance of the packet having the timestamp and a second ID;
receiving, by the network controller and from the network device, first functionality data for the first component and second functionality data for the second component; and based at least in part on the first functionality data and the second functionality data, determining, by the network controller, whether to continue operating the first component or the second component on the network device.
15. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
adding, to a networking device that includes a first operating system (OS) component, a second OS component to run concurrently on the networking device with the first OS component,
the networking device being part of a disaggregated network; transmitting, from the first OS component and to the second OS component, data comprising network routing information; storing the data in a memory of the second OS component; registering the second OS component with a routing infrastructure of the networking device to enable the second OS component to receive packets that are routed to the first OS component; adding a timestamp and a unique identifier (ID) to a first packet routed to the first OS component;
transmitting, after the adding, a first instance of the packet to the first OS component; transmitting, after the adding, a second instance of the packet to the second OS component; transmitting first functionality data from the first OS component to a controller; transmitting second functionality data from the second OS component to the controller; and comparing the first functionality data with the second functionality data using a validation template to determine whether to replace the first OS component with the second OS component in the network device.
15. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
deploying, by a network controller and to a network device, a first component and a second component to run concurrently on the network device,
wherein the second component is an upgraded version of the first component, and
wherein the first component receives a first instance of a packet routed to the network device, the first instance of the packet having a timestamp and a first identifier (ID), and the second component receives a second instance of the packet routed to the network device, the second instance of the packet having the timestamp and a second ID;
receiving, by the network controller and from the network device, first functionality data for the first component and second functionality data for the second component; and based at least in part on the first functionality data and the second functionality data, determining, by the network controller, whether to continue operating the first component or the second component on the network device.
7. A method comprising:
adding, to a disaggregated network that includes a first operating system (OS) component in a first route processor (RP), a second OS component in a second RP to run concurrently with the first OS component in the first RP in the disaggregated network; transmitting, from the first OS component and to the second OS component, data comprising network routing information; storing the data in a memory of the second OS component;
registering the second OS component with a routing infrastructure of the disaggregated network to enable the second OS component to receive packets that are routed to the first OS component; receiving a packet routed to the first OS component; adding a timestamp and a first unique identifier (ID) to a first instance of the packet and transmitting the first instance of the packet to the first OS component in the first RP; adding the timestamp and a second unique ID to a second instance of the packet and transmitting the second instance of the packet to the second OS component in the second RP;
transmitting first convergence data from the first OS component to a controller; transmitting second convergence data from the second OS component to the controller; comparing the first convergence data and the second convergence data with a validation template; and determining, based at least in part on the comparing, whether to replace the first OS component with the second OS component in the disaggregated network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 5-8, 12-151, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0013963 (hereinafter, “Papo”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,173 (hereinafter, “Delco”).
As per claims 1,8, 15, Papo discloses a method comprising:
deploying, by a network controller (network bridge; Fig 6A, ¶ [0070]) and to a network device, (host of the computing device; Fig. 1, ¶ [0070]) a first component and a second component to run concurrently on the network device, (First OS and second OS being run within the host operating system; Fig. 4) )
wherein the second component is an upgraded version of the first component, and (¶ [0086] states “first OS 530 does not have the drivers to support a VPN connection. Second OS 550 supports VPN connections”. It is therefore seen that the the OS with the additional drivers is considered as the updated OS because it supports additional network functionality)
wherein the first component receives a first instance of a packet routed to the network device, (¶ [0072] discloses data packets that are routed to the second OS. Stated differently, Fig. 4 illustrates how processes 330 are being are supported by first OS 320)
the first instance of the packet having a first identifier (ID), and (¶ [0070] states “data packets from the bar code scanning application can be routed to shared network interface 556. Control client 551 controls the routing of the data packets by way of IP table 55” )
the second component receives a second instance of the packet routed to the network device, (the drivers/services 325 in kernel 321 of first OS 320 may support one or more of the above-noted network interfaces which is not supported by second OS 360.; ¶ [0056] Stated differently, Fig. 4 illustrates how processes 370 are being are supported by second OS 360. Also Fig 7)
the second instance of the packet having a second ID; (¶ [0070] states “data packets from the bar code scanning application can be routed to shared network interface 556. Control client 551 controls the routing of the data packets by way of IP table 55” )
receiving, by the network controller and from the network device, first functionality data for the first component (a first operating system which provides broad support for various network interfaces may be running in a first container on embedded device 100; ¶ [0059] Further, Fig. 4 illustrates how processes 330 are being are supported by first OS 320) and second functionality data for the second component; and (Processes 370 may communicate with second OS 360, and in particular may make use of drivers and/or services 365 which are present in the kernel 361 of second OS 360; ¶ [0054], Fig 4, Also Fig 7)
based at least in part on the first functionality data and the second functionality data, determining, by the network controller, whether to continue operating the first component or the second component on the network device. (processes may be run by either the first operating OS or second OS based on the nature of the processes; Figs, 4, 7)
Papo does not distinctly disclose where data packets having a timestamp.
However, Delco explicitly discloses data packets having timestamp and ID.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Papo and Delco because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Delco’s teaching of having a data packet having a timestamp would enhance Papo's system by monitoring network traffic for bottlenecks and enhance data packet routing.
As per claims 5, 12, Papo as modified discloses a method wherein the second component comprises: a same software version and a different hardware configuration as the first component; (instances of the same operating system are running in containers 310; ¶ [0053] ) a different software version and a same hardware configuration as the first component; (second OS 550 may have access to an LTE interface 534b to which first OS 530 does not have access; ¶ [0101]) or a different software version and a different hardware configuration as the first component. (Papo: Fig 6A First OS includes external interface while second OS share does not)
As per claims 6, 13,19, Papo as modified discloses a method wherein the network controller and the network device are part of a disaggregated network, and the first component is a first operating system (OS) component, and the second component is a second OS components. (Papo: ¶ [0056 discloses how one operating system supports at least wifi network, whereas the other operating system support VPN network. One of ordinary skill would recognize that these two network are distinct networks, therefore this teaching is substantially similar to the claim disaggregated network)
As per claims 7, 14, 20, Papo as modified discloses a method wherein the first component is a first operating system (OS) component executing on a first route processor (RP) and the second component is a second OS component executing on a second RP. (Fig. 7 illustrates a wifi interface and LTE interface for receiving communication data that are coupled to different OSs, respectively. These interfaces may be physical interface ¶ [0096] that are used to route communication data. )
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0013963 (hereinafter, “Papo”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,173 (hereinafter, “Delco”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,333,983 (hereinafter, “Vaidya”)
As per claims 2, 9, 16, Papo as modified further discloses comprising by the network controller, the first functionality data with the second functionality data to determine whether to continue operating the first component or the second component on the network device. (Papo: processes may be run by either the first operating OS or second OS based on the nature of the processes; Figs, 4, 7)
Papo as modified does not distinctly discloses comparing, by the network controller, the first functionality data with the second functionality data using a validation template.
However, Vaidya discloses comparing, by the network controller, the first functionality data with the second functionality data using a validation template. (Col 9 lines 58-60 disclose the invention where the system to perform further validations on the template.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Papo as modified and Vaidya because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Vaidya’s teaching of validation template would enhance Papo's as modified system by ensuring the system behaves in a predetermined way thus optimizing quality.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0013963 (hereinafter, “Papo”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,173 (hereinafter, “Delco”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,333,983 (hereinafter, “Vaidya”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0265881 (hereinafter, “Filsfils”)
As per claims 3, 10, 17, Papo as modified does not distinctly disclose a method wherein the first functionality data is a first convergence time, and the second functionality data is a second convergence time, and further comprising: comparing, by the network controller, the first convergence time and the second convergence time; and determining, by the network controller and based at least in part on the comparing, whether the first component or the second component has a faster convergence time.
However, Filsfils explicitly discloses disclose a method wherein the first functionality data is a first convergence time, and the second functionality data is a second convergence time, and further comprising: comparing, by the network controller, the first convergence time and the second convergence time; and determining, by the network controller and based at least in part on the comparing, whether the first component or the second component has a faster convergence time. (Fig 1 illustrates one or more system components R1 through R5, for which a “comparison” for convergence time is made.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Papo as modified and Filsfils because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Filsfils’ teaching of comparing convergence times would enhance Papo's as modified system by ensuring communication paths that result in delivering network reliability is chosen.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0013963 (hereinafter, “Papo”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,478,173 (hereinafter, “Delco”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,333,983 (hereinafter, “Vaidya”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0265881 (hereinafter, “Filsfils”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0357542 (hereinafter, “Stanton”).
Asper claims 4, 11, 18, Papo as modified discloses a method further comprising determining, by the network controller and based at least in part on determining that the second component has the faster convergence time, (Filsfils: Fig 1 illustrates one or more system route paths for which convergence times are determined. These times are used for further determining which path among several paths having different components is “faster” ¶ [0013])
Papo as modified does not distinctly disclose continue to operate the second component and remove the first component form the network device.
However, Stanton explicitly discloses continue to operate the second component and remove the first component form the network device. (replacement of software component in favor of old component; ¶ [004])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Papo as modified and Stanton because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Stanto’s teaching of replacement software component would enhance Papo's as modified system by ensuring the system operates during software updates.
Relevant Prior Art
Pertinent prior art for the instant application is U.S. Patent No. 10, 476,845 discloses the invention directed to a computing device to perform traffic handling for a container in a virtualized computing environment. The method may comprise receiving a traffic flow of packets from a virtual machine and identifying a container from which the traffic flow originates based on content of the received traffic flow of packets. The container may be supported by the virtual machine. The method may further comprise retrieving a policy configured for the identified container and handling the received traffic flow of packets according to the policy. (abstract)
Conclusion
With respect to any newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP §714.02 and § 2163.06. For example, when responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kim Ngoc Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claim(s) 8, 15, these claims are substantially equivalent to method claim(s) 1 because the additional feature(s) are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claims 8, 15 also stand rejected. Indeed, at least Fig’s 1-3 of Popa in view of Delco further discloses the claimed system having a processor and a memory for storing instructions.