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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, no English language copy of the foreign documents CN 202111022448.X,
filed on September 1, 2021 have been provided. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(iii), should Applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. See 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)(iii) and 37 CFR 41.154(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 1, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been partially considered by the Examiner. However, it should be noted that only the U.S. documents could be considered, because the Chinese prior art references were not provided with an English translation, nor was a concise explanation of the relevance, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3). Most of the NPL documents were also written in the Chinese language. Applicant should always provide English translations of documents that are listed on IDSs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the Priority of the application, Applicant argues as follows:
The Applicant has prepared and submitted a certified English language translation for the priority document, Application No. 202111022448.X, in this response to the Office Action. The English language translation is accompanied by a Statement of Accuracy from the translator that generated the English language translation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that an English language version of CN 202111022448.X filed on September 1, 2021 has been provided. A Statement of Accuracy signed by Fengrong, LI has been located in the November 21, 2025 filings, and an additional copy of the specification was filed. However, the Examiner could not locate an English language version of CN 202111022448.X among the twenty-seven documents filed on November 21, 2025.
Regarding the Information Disclosure Statement, Applicant argues as follows:
The Applicant has prepared and submitted English language translations of the Chinese prior art references with the IDS filed together with this response. The English language translation for each Chinese prior art reference is included at the beginning of the document for that Chinse prior art reference.
Note that the Office Action mistakenly indicated that none of the Chinese references listed in the IDS of March 2, 2024 had accompanying English language translations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s contention that the “Office Action mistakenly indicated that none of the Chinese references listed in the IDS of March 2, 2024 had accompanying English language translations.” If Applicant had inspected those references more closely, Applicant would have noticed that only the abstract sections of those documents are provided in English, and the majority of the documents are written in Chinese. An abstract represents a summary of an invention, but is not sufficient for complete prosecution purposes.
Regarding the Claim Objections of the application, Applicant argues as follows:
Claims 11, 13, 15 and 22 are objected to because of informalities.
In response to the objection of claim 11, the Applicant has amended the steps of the claim to include line indentations. Thus, it is submitted the objection is overcome.
In response to the objection of claims 13, 15 and 22, the Applicant has cancelled these claims. Thus, it is submitted that the objection is moot.
For the foregoing reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the objections to claims 11, 13, 15, and 22 are respectfully requested.
Examiner concurs and has withdrawn the objections.
Regarding the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant argues as follows:
Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
In response to the rejection of claims 1, 11-13 and 15, the Applicant has amended
"to-be-processed packet" into the "packet" and has added "wherein the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet" into currently amended claims 1, 11 and 12. Hence, it is clear that the packet is a packet that is to be processed by a server, and thus the relationship between the first server and the packet is clear.
In response to the rejection of claims 2, 17 and 19-20, the Applicant has amended the "flow table for analysis and processing of the to be-processed packet" into the "flow table for the packet" to make the solution more clear. Moreover, new claim 23 has been added to further explain the related contents of the first flow table and the meaning of "hitting the first table". Such addition clarifies that when the contents of the first flow table includes the five-tuple information and the executing operation information of the packet, the packet hits the first flow table, that is, the first flow table is used for the first server to perform a data processing operation on the packet, which can also be known from, for example, paragraph [0058] of the specification of the present application.
In response to the rejection of claims 3 and 18, the Applicant submits that with newly filed claim 23, it is known that there are many entries in the first flow table and the first flow table may include information, such as, the five-tuple information and the executing operation information of the packet. Moreover, the specific format is not limited by the specification. And, as to how to identify the first flow chat, the Applicant submits that it can be achieved by those skilled in that art through common means.
In response to the rejection of claims 4 and 19, the Applicant respectfully submits that the specification specifically recites: "for forwarding a packet by using the first flow table or the second flow table in the network interface card, flow table statistical information corresponding to the packet forwarding operation is generated to identify corresponding relevant information for the user to use a packet processing service. The above flow table statistical information can include statistical information of all flow table entries". See, for example, paragraph [0075] of the specification of the present application. It shows the relationship between the flow tables and the flow table statistical information, and that statistical information can be acquired based on the relationship through common means. Moreover, the type of the specific format is not limited by the specification.
In response to the rejection of claims 6 and 21, the Applicant respectfully submits that the "synchronize" is a common expression known for those skilled in that art. As from the Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, which is cited in the Office Action, it means "to happen at the same time", and also from paragraph [0085] of the specification of the present application, it is known that, through the "synchronization", the accuracy and reliability of determining the running state of the first server can be effectively ensured. For other considerations in the Office Action, the Applicant submits that the technical problem of the present application is how to avoid data processing performance loss in user stress testing and malicious attack scenarios and how to improve stability of analyzing and processing a packet. Newly filed claim 1 can already solve the technical problem and the current solutions of the claims are clear.
For the foregoing reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-13, 15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are respectfully requested.
For Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-21, Examiner agrees that with the amendment that replaces the term “to-be-processed packet” with simply “packet” those previously cited aspects of the claims no longer are indefinite. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of Claims 1-13, 15, and 17-21 have been withdrawn.
For Claims 2 and 17, Examiner agrees that Claim 23’s further definition of the flow table contents assists the person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in understanding Claim 2, but there is no equivalent explanation relating to Claim 17, which relates to the apparatus. Examiner suggests that perhaps a Claim 24 depending on Claim 17 be added to the recitations to make the apparatus claims equivalent to the method claims. In addition, it would make more sense to have Claim 2 depend from Claim 23 and Claim 17 depend from new Claim 24, since the determination of the server is connected to the definition of the five-tuple. Another alternative approach would be to add the contents of Claim 23 to independent Claims 1 and 12. Such an approach would tend to advance prosecution. The rejection of Claim 2 is withdrawn, but the rejections of Claims 17 and 19-21 remains.
For Claims 3 and 18, Examiner agrees that the contents of Claim 23 assist the POSITA in understanding the flow tables, but it should be noted that Claim 18, an apparatus claim, does not currently have any relationship to Claim 23, which is a method claim. Examiner refers Applicant to the response provided for Claims 2 and 17 above. The rejection has been withdrawn for Claim 3, but not for Claim 18.
For Claims 4 and 19, Examiner notes that the claimed statistical information is disclosed in the specification as follows:
The above flow table statistical information can include statistical information of all flow table entries, for example, service statistical information (a number of uses, a frequency of use, a network bandwidth, a data processing speed, a service fee, etc.), flow statistical information (five-tuple information). Specification, paragraph [0075], emphasis added.
In addition, the above “five-tuple information” is defined as “a source IP address, a destination IP address, a protocol number, a source port, a destination port” (specification, paragraph [0057], emphasis added). It appears that the five-tuple information, which includes packet source and destination addresses, ports, and protocol information are considered as statistical, and this information is obtained from storage. However, it is not clear from the specification exactly when that information is stored and in what format. All the information listed in the example, such as number and frequency of uses, bandwidth, speed, fees, and the term “etc.,” which is undefined are obtained, regarding the packets. However, it is not clear how that information is obtained, since there does not appear to be any monitoring being performed. Therefore the first and second limitations are indefinite.
Finally, the last limitation recites “updating the second statistical information based on the first statistical information.” This limitation is completely unclear, since the specification discloses “update the first server to a second server when the running state of the first running server is an abnormal state, where a running state of the second server is a normal state” (paragraph [0044]) and other variations of the same information in other paragraphs that disclose updating the first server running abnormally to the second server, which is running normally. Applicant’s argument that paragraph [0075] “shows the relationship between the flow tables and the flow table statistical information, and that statistical information can be acquired based on the relationship through common means” is not sufficient to explain the updating limitation cited above. Examiner was unable to locate any disclosure of updating statistical information, therefore making the last limitation indefinite. Therefore, Claims 4 and 19 remain as being indefinite, and Examiner suggests amending those claims to provide additional specificity about the updating process.
For Claims 6 and 21, the claims recite “synchronizing/synchronize the respective current running states of all the servers to the hardware module, to generate state identifier tables, wherein the state identifier table comprises a state identifier used to identify the running state of the server.” The Office is well aware of the meaning of synchronization, which Applicant defines as “to happen at the same time,” but it is not clear what it means to in the context of these claims. It is first important to understand the meaning of “running state,” which is disclosed in paragraph [0060] as follows:
[W]hen the state identifier is "0", it can be determined that the running state of the first server is an abnormal state: and when the state identifier is "1 ", it can be determined that the running state of the first server is a normal state. Specification, paragraph [0060], emphasis added.
Step S303: update the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, where a running state of the second server is a normal state. Specification, paragraph [0049], emphasis added.
This definition makes sense, but it is unclear what is meant by “synchronizing/synchronize the respective current running states of all the servers to the hardware module.” More specificity is needed in the recitation. If it means that all the running states are sent to the hardware module at the same time, then it should be stated more clearly, and if that is not the meaning, more clarification is needed. The claims remain as indefinite until more clarity is provided.
Regarding the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues as follows:
Claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US 2012/0042049A1). The Applicant respectfully submits that Miyazaki does not disclose or suggest each and every element of currently amended claim 1. Specifically, Miyazaki fails to disclose:
obtaining a packet;
determining a first server corresponding to the packet, wherein the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet;
updating the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, wherein a running state of the second server is a normal state; and
editing the packet corresponding to the first server based on the second server, to obtain a processed packet, wherein the processed packet comprises configuration information of the second server.
Referring to paragraphs [0003] and [0005], Miyazaki discloses that it is important for service providers to manage systems so as to provide services to users in a stable manner at any time. When a failure such as a disconnection or a delay occurs, it may be necessary to quickly restore an interested server or network...One of methods for determining the location of a failure in a network is a method for analyzing traffic on a wide area network (WAN) and thereby determining whether a failure exists on the WAN or a local area network (LAN).
Further referring to paragraph [0007], of Miyazaki, it discloses a determination apparatus including a processor and a storage unit. The processor acquires through a communication network a request packet transmitted from a client device to a server device group or a reply packet transmitted from the server device group to the client device. The server device group includes a first server device and one or more second server devices. The first server device is connected to the client device through the communication network. The storage unit stores configuration information for determining a source of the acquired reply packet. The processor determines whether the source of the acquired reply packet is the first server device or one of the second server devices on the basis of the configuration information stored in the storage unit.
From above, it can be seen that, in Miyazaki, in order to determine the location of a failed server, a determination apparatus is provided, where a processor of the determination apparatus acquires a request packet transmitted from a client device to a server device group or a reply packet transmitted from the server device group to the client device, and the processor determines the source of the acquired reply packet, i.e., the processor determines the corresponding server. Thus, the packet in Miyazaki is the request packet or the reply packet, rather than a packet that is to be processed by the first server. In other words, the request packet is used for finding the interactive server, rather than the server which is used to perform a data processing operation thereon. Miyazaki fails to disclose the "packet" in currently amended claim 1 and fails to disclose "obtaining a packet; and determining a first server corresponding to the packet, wherein the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet".
Further, the Applicant submits that Miyazaki aims at how to quickly determine the location of the failed server and gives related determination methods. However, Miyazaki fails to disclose the technical features "updating the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, wherein a running state of the second server is a normal state; and editing the to-be-processed packet corresponding to the first server based on the second server, to obtain a processed packet, wherein the processed packet comprises configuration information of the second server" in currently amended claim 1.
As for technical features "updating the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, wherein a running state of the second server is a normal state, and editing the to-be-processed packet corresponding to the first server based on the second server, to obtain a processed packet, wherein the processed packet comprises configuration information of the second server", the Applicant notes that the Office Action cited paragraphs [0102], [0104], [0080], and [0055] to make corresponding comments, further referring to the above cited paragraphs, the Applicant respectfully submits that none of them discloses the above distinguishing technical features.
Specifically, from paragraphs [0102] and [0104], Miyazaki discloses that the determination apparatus 30 may identify a server device group and the failure location determining unit 38 makes a failure location determination for each of final processing servers included in the server device groups; from paragraphs [0080] and [0055], Miyazaki discloses the final processing server of the packet is determined by detecting a change (caused by the difference between processes performed by the servers) in the reply packet. In other words, this paragraph still records the method for determining the type of the server. However, Miyazaki never mentions updating the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, wherein the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet and a running state of the second server is a normal state, let alone to disclose editing the to-be-processed packet corresponding to the first server based on the second server, to obtain a processed packet, wherein the processed packet comprises configuration information of the second server.
Thus, Miyazaki fails to disclose the above distinguishing technical features of currently amended claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 12 include similar limitations to those of currently amended claim 1. Therefore, currently amended claims 11 and 12 are also patentable over Miyazaki for at least the same reasons as currently amended claim 1.
As each claim is directly dependent on currently amended claim 1, 11 or 12, they are also patentable over Miyazaki for at least the same reasons as currently amended claim 1, 11 or 12.
For the foregoing reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are respectfully requested.
By providing extensive details of how the Miyazaki invention works, Applicant appears to be arguing that Miyazaki has a different purpose from that of the instant invention. However, the above references to paragraphs [0003], [0005], and [0007] demonstrate that both Miyazaki and the instant application deal with systems that include multiple servers and that the process includes determining whether servers are properly functioning, and if a server is in an abnormal state, a different server handles the packet processing. The instant application discloses as follows:
Embodiments of the present invention provide a packet processing method, a
device, a storage medium and a computer program product, which can effectively avoid data processing performance loss in user stress testing and malicious attack scenarios, and in turn help to improve stability of analyzing and processing a packet. Specification, paragraph [0005].
Miyazaki discloses the very similar subject matter, as follows:
It is important for service providers to manage systems so as to provide services
to users in a stable manner at any time. When a failure such as a disconnection or a delay occurs, it may be necessary to quickly restore an interested server or network. Miyazaki, paragraph [0003].
According to the embodiments, it is possible to acquire and analyze traffic (a request packet or a reply packet) between the client device and the server device group on a communication path and thereby determine whether a final processing server, i.e., a source of the reply packet, of the request packet is the front-end server or the back-end server. Miyazaki, paragraph [0025].
Therefore, the initial overall argument provided by Applicant is not persuasive.
More importantly, it should also be noted that claim limitations are examined on an individual basis, and that arguments should be made based on Applicant’s disagreement in the same manner, based on individual limitations. Applicant provides extensive arguments about request and reply packets, but to be clear, the first limitation for independent Claims 1 and 12 simply recites “obtain a packet” with no specificity as to the type of packet being obtained. Nor are specific servers claimed, but merely “first server” and “second server” are recited. In fact, the independent claims are so broadly recited that the Miyazaki reference clearly discloses the subject matter.
Applicant next argues that “Miyazaki never mentions updating the first server to a second server.” However, Miyazaki discloses that “A determination is made of the failure location … for each of final processing servers included in the server device groups” ([0104]) and that “The final processing server determining unit 37 of the determination apparatus 30 determines a final processing server of the request packet” ([0113]). Since there are multiple servers in the group, the final determination of the server amounts to “updating the first server to a second server” without those specific terms “first server” and “second server” being used. Therefore, that argument is also not persuasive.
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 4, 6, 17, and 19-21 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.
Regarding Claims 17 and 19-20,
Claim 17 recites “obtain a flow table for the packet,” and contains multiple recitations of “first flow table,” and “second flow table” and also recites determination limitations that include decision factors when the to-be-processed packet “hits the first flow table” or “does not hit the first flow table.” Claim 19 recites “obtain, through the storage space, first statistical information corresponding to the first flow table” and Claim 20 recites “obtain a first state identifier of the first server based on the flow table.”
Since the specification is written is a fairly broad fashion and does not provide sufficient definitions for some of the terms, it is not clear to a person of ordinary exactly how to understand Claim 17 of the invention. For example, in the phrase “obtain a flow table for the packet,” it is not clear what the contents are of the “flow tables,” or what it means to “hit the … flow table.”
The subject matter of Claim 23, which is directed to the method claim, needs to be added to the apparatus claims. Examiner suggests that a new Claim 24 containing the subject matter of Claim 23 and depending from Claim 17 be added to the recitations to make the apparatus claims equivalent to the method claims. In addition, it would make more sense to have Claim 17 depend from new Claim 24, since the determination of the server is connected to the definition of the five-tuple. A better approach would be to add the contents of Claim 23 to independent Claims 1 and 12. Such an approach would tend to advance prosecution
Regarding Claim 4 and 19,
The claims recite “obtain(ing) … statistical information corresponding to the first/second flow table,” but is not clear what the format is for storing the information or how the information is acquired. The specification discloses the following:
The hardware module of the network interface card includes the first flow table, and the software module of the network interface card includes the second flow table. For forwarding a packet by using the first flow table or the second flow table in the network interface card, flow table statistical information corresponding to the packet forwarding operation is generated to identify corresponding relevant information for the user to use a packet processing service. The above flow table statistical information can include statistical
information of all flow table entries, for example, service statistical information (a number of uses, a frequency of use, a network bandwidth, a data processing speed, a service fee, etc.), flow statistical information (five-tuple information). Specification, paragraph [0075], emphasis added.
However, it is not clear how the above information is acquired. More specifics are needed regarding the “statistical information.”
Regarding Claims 6 and 21,
It is not clear what is meant by the claim recitation of “synchronizing/synchronize the respective current running states of all the servers to the hardware module, to generate state identifier tables.” The term “synchronize” is not specifically defined in the specification, and has the following dictionary meanings:
[intransitive, transitive] to happen at the same time or to move at the same speed as something; to make something do this
[transitive] to link data files between one computer or mobile device and another so that the information in the files on both machines is the same (www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/synchronize).
The specification discloses as follows:
When the current running states of all the servers are obtained, the current running states of all the servers can be synchronized to the hardware module to generate state identifier tables. The state identifier tables include state identifiers used to identify the running states of all the servers. In this way, it is effectively realized that the running state of the server can be obtained through regular detection, and then the running state of the server can be synchronized to the hardware module, which can effectively ensure the accuracy and reliability of determining the running state of the first server. Specification, paragraph [0085], emphasis added.
However, this paragraph does not sufficiently clarify the meaning of the synchronization of the server to the hardware module, how such synchronization results in the generation of “state identifier tables,” or how the tables are to be accessed. The details of such synchronization and table access process are not provided and additional clarification is needed.
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.
Clams 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki et al. (US 2012/0042049 A1, hereinafter referred to as Miyazaki).
Regarding Clams 1, 11, and 12,
Miyazaki teaches:
“obtaining a packet” (paragraph [0025]). [It is possible to acquire and analyze traffic between the client device and the server device group via a request packet or a reply packet ([0025]).]
“determining a first server corresponding to the packet” (paragraph [0025]). [A determination is made whether a final processing server, i.e., a source of the reply packet, of the request packet is the front-end server or the back-end server ([0025]).]
“wherein the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet” (paragraphs [0105], [0106]; fig. 1, elements 10, 20; fig. 10, elements 34, 38). [The failure location determining unit 38 accumulates, from the measured data database 34, data obtained for a predetermined time period and relating to server device groups with communication addresses including "3 .1.1.1", "4.1.1.1" and "5.1.1.1" for each of the final processing servers ([0105]). The result of the accumulation of data regarding packets transmitted and received between the client device 10 and the server device group with the communication address "3.1.1.1" indicates that the front-end server replied normally ([0106]).] (NOTE: The front-end server processing the accumulated data and replying normally is equivalent to “the first server is used to perform a data processing operation on the packet.”)
“updating the first server to a second server when a running state of the first server is an abnormal state, wherein a running state of the second server is a normal state” (paragraph [0102], [0104], [0113]; fig. 2, elements 30, 37). [Identification is made of a server device group that has transmitted or received a packet on the basis of a communication address, which is included in the acquired packet, of a server ([0102]). A determination is made of the failure location and counts of each type (NG-replied, non-replied, and late-replied) of abnormally replied requests and the number of normally replied requests for each of final processing servers included in the server device groups ([0104]). The final processing server determining unit 37 of the determination apparatus 30 determines a final processing server of the request packet ([0113]).] (NOTE: The counts of the abnormally replied requests indicate “first server is an abnormal state” the normally replied requests for each of final processing servers indicate “second server is a normal state,” and the determination of the final processing server is equivalent to “updating the first server to a second server.”)
“editing the to-be-processed packet corresponding to the first server based on the second server, to obtain a processed packet” (paragraph [0080]). [Determining the final processing server of the packet is accomplished by detecting a change caused by the difference between processes performed by the servers in the reply packet ([0080]).] (NOTE: The changes to the reply packet are equivalent to “editing the packet” and the difference between processes performed by the servers to “corresponding to the first server based on the second server.”)
“wherein the processed packet comprises configuration information of the second server” (paragraph [0055]). [The URI included in the request packet data among the data regarding a target pair of the request packet and reply packet is the same as an URI as the configuration information stored in the configuration information storage unit ([0055]).]
“a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is used to store one or more computer instructions” as recited in Claims 12 and 13 (paragraph [0125]; fig. 15, elements 1502, 1504, 1506). [The computer illustrated in FIG. 15 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 1502 for executing the software such as operating system (OS) and application programs, a random access memory (RAM) 1504 for temporarily storing data, a hard disk drive (HDD) 1506 for storing data([0125]).]
Prior Art for Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites the following subject matter that was not found in the prior art:
obtaining a flow table for the packet, wherein the flow table comprises at least one of: a first flow table located in a hardware module or a second flow table located in a software module.
The issues of dependency are complex, as follows:
Claim 17 recites the same subject matter as Claim 2, but is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and therefore not objected to.
Claims 3-6 depend from Claim 2, and Claims 18-21 depend from Claim 17. However, Claims 4 and 6 and Claims 19 and 21 are rejected as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 5 are not rejected, but are also objected to for containing subject matter not found in the prior art.
Claims 18 and 20 depend from Claim 17, which is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7 recites the following subject matter that was not found in the prior art:
obtaining an access control list used to identify a running state of a server.
Since Claim 8 depends from Claim 7, Claims 7-8 are both objected to as containing subject matter not found in the prior art.
Claim 9 recites the following subject matter that was not found in the prior art:
adding the configuration information to a preset field of the packet, to obtain the processed packet.
Since Claim 10 depends from Claim 2, Claims 9-10 both contain subject matter not found in the prior art.
New Claim 23, which depends from Claim 2 recites the following subject matter not found in the prior art:
determining five-tuple information and executing operation information of the packet, wherein the five-tuple information comprises a source internet protocol (IP) address, a destination IP address, a protocol number, a source port, and a destination port;
determining that the packet hits the first flow table when the first flow table includes the five-tuple information and the executing operation information of the packet; and
determining that the packet does not hit the first flow table when the first flow table does not include the five-tuple information and the executing operation information of the packet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454