DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/678,702) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/678,702 all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed May 30, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.” Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(r) recites “Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows: (1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points.”
Fig. 1, item 100; Fig. 2, item 200; Fig. 3, item 300; and Fig. 6, item 600 are reference characters that do not indicate a surface or cross section on which they are each placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character.
Moreover, Fig. 1, item 100; Fig. 2, item 200; Fig. 3, item 300; and Fig. 6, item 600 appears to each indicate the entire section towards which they points. Thus, the Examiner recommends adding to arrow at the end of the lead line.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (e.g., “InstaMesh™” at Spec. 1) has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as TM, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
This is not an objection to the Specification.
The Specification cites “U.S. Pat. No. 11,729,092.” Spec. 2. The Examiner notes the listing of references in the Specification is not a proper IDS. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(b) (requiring a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office); see also MPEP § 609.04(a)(I) (citing “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.”). Therefore, unless the references are included in an IDS or have been cited by the Examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
This is not an objection to the Specification.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a):
The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.
Claims 1–8 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(a) for the following informalities:
(i) claim 1, all instances of “the networks” should be “the one or more networks.”
(ii) claim 1, line 4 should be “the one or more interfaces.”
Means-plus-Function Language
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(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 claims in the instant 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) 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):
(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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.§ 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.§ 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in the instant application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C.§ 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The instant 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) 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 limitations1 are:
“one or more interfaces” (claim 1, line 3) and “at least one interface” (claim 16, line 8); and
“second host” (claim 16, line 4).
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 1–8 and 16–23 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to “one or more interfaces” (claim 1, line 3) and “at least one interface” (claim 16, line 8), the Specification discloses “a diversity router that includes one or more interfaces.” Spec. 2.
With respect to the claimed function corresponding to “second host” (claim 16, line 4), the Specification discloses “[t]he source and destination nodes 201, 202 may be referred to as a first and second hosts, respectively.” Spec. 5. Moreover, “[w]ith reference to FIG. 5, shown is a diagram illustrating router system 500 at the destination such as the destination node 302.” Id. at 11. Thus, with respect to “second host” (claim 16, line 4), the Specification discloses the elements of item 500 including a controller item 503 that achieves the claimed function.
If Applicants do not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicants may amend the claims so that they will clearly not invoke § 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of § 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011) (available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “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 MPEP recites “[d]uring examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected.” MPEP § 2173.02(I) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” Id. See also id. § 2173.05(e)(discussing indefiniteness arising for terms lacking proper antecedent basis).
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular,
(i) claim 1, line 11, “packets” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to the packets introduced in line 5 or not. If so, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “the packets.” If not, the Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “second packets” and amending all subsequent instances of “the packets” to “the second packets.”
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to “the packets.” See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
(ii) claim 7, lines 2–3, “and/or” adds ambiguity to the claim because the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the limitation refers to “and” or “or.”
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to “or.”
Clam 14, lines 2–3; and claim 22, lines 2–3 by analogy.
(iii) claim 3, line 2 introduces a “shard.” The term “shard” has no ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. The Specification at best recites a conversation “shard,” but provides no special definition. See generally Spec. The Examiner is uncertain as to whether a “shard” is (1) a fragment of a substance; (2) tags carried by data packets (see Spec. 8); or (3) something else. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential)).
“Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” MPEP § 2173.05(e); see also id. § 2111.01 (reciting “[i]f no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, . . . the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).”).
Claims 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 by analogy.
(iv) claim 8, line 3, “the route” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claims 15 and 23 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Ma
Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Ma et al. (US 8,036,226 B1; filed Aug. 26, 2009).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a diversity router system (fig. 1, item 1) for routing data across multiple paths (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
a diversity router (figs. 1 and 2, item 12; “several paths may connect a first edge router and a geographically-separated second edge router” at 1:50–51; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer items 12 and 14 from fig. 1 are edge routers to align with the description from 1:50–51; see MPEP § 2144.01), comprising:
one or more interfaces (fig. 2, items 20) coupled to one or more networks (fig. 1, item 12) and configured to receive data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) from the networks and transmit data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) to the networks, wherein the interfaces are configured to receive packets (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47);
at least one processor (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18); and
at least one non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium (“a computer-readable medium comprises instructions” at 2:25–26) storing one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48) that includes instructions that cause the at least one processor to execute operations to route the packets through the networks, the operations comprising:
inspecting packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine whether an indication for diversity (“initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet (42). Using the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 determines whether queue structure 26 contains a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (44).” at 9:10–15) exists in the packets;
determining a plurality of paths (fig. 3, item 46; “initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26 that has the extracted flow information (46)” at 9:24–26; “A flow queue contains all network packets awaiting transmission to the destination via a particular network path” at 5:60–61) through the networks when the indication for diversity exists in the packets (NO to fig. 3, item 44; “initial load balancer 32 determines that queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (‘NO’ of 44)” at 9:21–24);
assigning (at fig. 3, item 48; “After initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26, initial load balancer 32 inserts the new network packet into this flow queue (48)” at 9:30–32) the packets to the plurality of paths; and
transmitting the packets through the networks via the assigned paths (“initial load balancer 32 inserts network packets in the new flow into the flow queue in queue structure 26 for transmission through one of paths 16 to device 14” at 6:35–38).
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses wherein the indication for diversity comprises a tag (NO to fig. 3, item 44; “initial load balancer 32 determines that queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (‘NO’ of 44)” at 9:21–24) indicating that diversity is required.
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses wherein inspecting the packets comprises inspecting contents (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) of the packets, and wherein the indication for diversity comprises a predetermined content (“initial load balancer 32 checks whether queue structure 26 contains a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information. . . . On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:15–22).
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses wherein inspecting the packets comprises analyzing a source information of the packets and/or a destination information (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) of the packets, and wherein the indication for diversity comprises a predetermined source information and/or a predetermined destination information (“On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:19–22; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer from 6:19–22 a queue structure 26 that does not contain a flow queue with source and destination addresses that matches the extracted source and destination addresses, then initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32; see MPEP § 2144.01).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses a method for routing data (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47)) across multiple paths (fig. 1, item 16) by using a diversity router system (fig. 1, item 12) that includes one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48), comprising:
receiving packets (fig. 3, item 40) to be transmitted to networks (fig. 1, item 10);
inspecting the packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine whether an indication for diversity (“initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet (42). Using the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 determines whether queue structure 26 contains a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (44).” at 9:10–15) exists in the packets, based on instructions included in the DPR protocol;
determining a plurality of paths through the networks when2 the indication for diversity exists in the packets, based on the instructions included in the DPR protocol;
assigning the packets to the plurality of paths, based on instructions included in the DPR protocol;3 and
transmitting the packets through the networks via the assigned paths.4
Regarding claims 12–14, claims 5–7, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 5–7 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 12–14.
Regarding claim 16, Ma discloses a network system (fig. 1, item 1) for securely transmitting data to a destination through networks (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
a first host (figs. 1 and 2, item 12) configured to transmit data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) through the networks;
a second host (fig. 1, item 14) configured to receive the data from the first host (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25); and
a plurality of communication paths (fig. 1, items 16) coupled to the first host and second host, wherein the first host comprises a diversity router system that comprises:
a diversity router (figs. 1 and 2, item 12; “several paths may connect a first edge router and a geographically-separated second edge router” at 1:50–51; one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to infer items 12 and 14 from fig. 1 are edge routers to align with the description from 1:50–51; see MPEP § 2144.01), comprising:
at least one interface (fig. 2, items 20) coupled to one or more networks (fig. 1, item 12) and configured to receive data (fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) from the networks and transmit data fig. 1 illustrates a bidirectional arrow between items 12 and 14; “Paths 16A through 16N (collectively, paths 16) represent network paths that facilitate communication between LAN 4 and LAN 6.” at 3:23–25) to the networks, wherein the at least one interface is configured to receive packets (“distribute and redistribute flows of network packets between different paths” at 1:45–47);
at least one processor (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18); and
at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium (“a computer-readable medium comprises instructions” at 2:25–26) storing one or more protocols comprising a diverse paths routing (DPR) protocol (fig. 3, items 40–48) that includes instructions that cause the at least one processor to execute operations to route the packets through the networks, the operations comprising:
inspecting packets (fig. 3, items 40, 42; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14) to determine whether an indication for diversity (“initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet (42). Using the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 determines whether queue structure 26 contains a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (44).” at 9:10–15) exists in the packets;
determining a plurality of paths (fig. 3, item 46; “initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26 that has the extracted flow information (46)” at 9:24–26; “A flow queue contains all network packets awaiting transmission to the destination via a particular network path” at 5:60–61) through the networks when the indication for diversity exists in the packets (NO to fig. 3, item 44; “initial load balancer 32 determines that queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue having flow information that corresponds to the extracted flow information (‘NO’ of 44)” at 9:21–24);
assigning (at fig. 3, item 48; “After initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue in queue structure 26, initial load balancer 32 inserts the new network packet into this flow queue (48)” at 9:30–32) the packets to the plurality of paths; and
transmitting the packets through the networks via the assigned paths (“initial load balancer 32 inserts network packets in the new flow into the flow queue in queue structure 26 for transmission through one of paths 16 to device 14” at 6:35–38).
Regarding claims 20–22, claims 5–7, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 5–7 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 20–22.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Ma and Durinovic-Johri
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Durinovic-Johri et al. (US 2002/0176359 A1; filed May 8, 2001).
Regarding claim 2, Ma does not teach wherein the one or more protocols further comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) routing protocol, and Kinetic Mesh routing protocol.
Durinovic-Johri teaches an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol (“OSPF routing protocol” at ¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s one or more protocols to further comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol, Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) routing protocol, and Kinetic Mesh routing protocol as taught by Durinovic-Johri for “managing data packet flow in routers of networks.” Durinovic-Johri ¶ 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Ma and Leon
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Leon (US 2019/0386957 A1; filed June 12, 2019).
Regarding claim 3, while Ma teaches further comprising a controller (“one or more processors of network device 12” at 5:18) configured to receive a data packet (“intermediate network device 12 receives a network packet (40)” at 9:6–7),
Ma does not teach splitting the data packet into a plurality of shards, wherein the data packet includes complete useable information.
Leon teaches splitting a data packet (“the data packet(s) are split” at ¶ 130) into a plurality of shards (“sub-packets” at ¶ 130), wherein the data packet includes complete useable information (“the information is only usable if the sub-packets are combined.” at ¶ 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s controller to split the data packet into a plurality of shards, wherein the data packet includes complete useable information as taught by Leon “for protecting against network-based attacks.” Leon ¶ 31.
Regarding claim 4, Ma does not teach wherein none of the individual shards contains useable information of the data packet.
Leon teaches wherein none of individual shards (“sub-packets” at ¶ 130) contains useable information of a data packet (“the data packet(s)” at ¶ 130; “the information is only usable if the sub-packets are combined.” at ¶ 130 at least suggests the sub-packets are not usable until they are combined back into the original data packet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for none of the Ma/Leon combination’s individual shards to contain useable information of the data packet as taught by Leon “for protecting against network-based attacks.” Leon ¶ 31.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 18, and 19, claims 3, 4, 3, and 4, respectively, recite substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claims 3, 4, 3, and 4 are equally applicable to, respectively, claims 10, 11, 18, and 19.
Ma and Claes
Claims 8, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ma in view of Claes (US 2017/0223045 A1; PCT filed June 1, 2015).
Regarding claim 8, while Ma teaches wherein inspecting the packets comprises inspecting information of the packets (fig. 3, item 40; “initial load balancer 32 extracts flow information from the new network packet. For example, initial load balancer 32 may extract source and destination addresses, port numbers, application information, and so on from the new network packet.” at 6:10–14), and wherein the indication for diversity (NO to fig. 3, item 44) comprises predetermined characteristics of the information (“On the other hand, if queue structure 26 does not contain a flow queue with flow information that matches the extracted flow information, initial load balancer 32 creates a new flow queue within queue structure 32.” at 6:19–22),
Ma does not teach the information being predetermined route information.
Claes teaches predetermined route information (“Predetermined routing information, which define a communication path of the data packet, may be stored in the data packet to that end.” at ¶ 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Ma’s information to be predetermined route information as taught by Claes for “improving the data protection [to] promote data security.” Claes ¶ 5.
Regarding claims 15 and 23, claim 8 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 8 are equally applicable to claims 15 and 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20110069642-A1; US-9729347-B2; US-9553817-B1; US-20160261500-A1; US-20230188468-A1; US-20250247780-A1; US-20170163535-A1; US-6868083-B2; US-20120155468-A1; US-20150029850-A1; US-20070180513-A1; and WO-2018086707-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner notes “Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.” Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See also Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the term “compliance mechanism” in a method claim was a means-plus-function term); see also MPEP § 2181.
2 The determining method-step (claim 9, lines 6–7) is conditional and, therefore, need not be satisfied to meet claim 9. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition precedent is not met) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_28.pdf; last visited Feb. 18, 2026); see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
3 The assigning method-step (claim 9, lines 8–9) depend from conditional determined paths from the conditional determining method-step (claim 9, lines 6–7). See supra n. 2. Thus, the assigning method-step (claim 9, lines 8–9) is also conditional and need not be performed. See Schulhauser at *3–5; see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).
4 The transmitting method-step (claim 9, line 10) depends from conditional assigned paths from the conditional assigning method-step (claim 9, lines 8–9). See supra n. 3. Thus, the transmitting method-step (claim 9, line 10) is also conditional and need not be performed. See Schulhauser at *3–5; see also MPEP § 2111.04(II) (citing Schulhauser).