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 ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received January 13, 2026 (the “Response”).
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Drawings
Response
Applicants assert “the Applicant is providing replacement drawings as suggested by the Examiner.” Response 6.
The Examiner does not find replacement drawings on file. Thus, the drawing objection is maintained.
The Objection
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.” 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 is a reference character that does not indicate a surface or cross section on which it is 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, item 100 appears to indicate the entire section towards which it points. Thus, item 100 needs a freestanding arrow on the lead line to indicate the entire section towards which it points.
Fig. 2A, item 202; Fig. 2B, item 204; Fig. 2C, item 206; Fig. 3, item 300; Fig. 4, item 100; Fig. 5A, item 502; Fig. 5B, item 504; Fig. 5C, item 506; Fig. 6, item 600 by analogy.
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.
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
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue “the term ‘local endpoint’ should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). ‘Local endpoint’ is not a nonce term like ‘means’. Rather, ‘local endpoint’ is a term of art well understood by those skilled in the art.” Response 6.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Attorney argument is not evidence, In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974), nor can such argument take the place of evidence lacking in the record, Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
A technical dictionary defines the term “endpoint” as being “[t]he beginning or end of a line segment.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 193 (5th ed. 2002). Thus, in the absence of sufficient evidence and/or a persuasive line of technical reasoning that the term “local endpoint” is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure1, the Examiner finds the term interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as being a generic placeholder coupled with functional language.
The Invoking of § 112(f)
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 limitations are:
“local endpoint” (claim 1, line 4 and claim 9, lines 1–2).2
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), claims 1–4 and 9–11 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the Specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof—”one or more processors (e.g., CPU and/or GPU microprocessors) 604.” Spec. ¶ 48.
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. § 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sengodan (US 2003/0112793 A1; filed Dec. 18, 2001) in view of Fei et al. (US 2022/0353335 A1; filed Apr. 28, 2021), and in further view of Warrick et al. (US 2013/0346564 A1; filed June 21, 2013).
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert “the Examiner cited B.2 in FIG. 2b of Sengodan as being an example of the local endpoint’s ID of claim 1. In response, the Applicant submits that Sengodan’s B.2 is a public IP address for Sengodan’s packets. See paragraph [0015] of Sengodan.” Response 6. Applicants argue “Sengodan does not teach or even suggest an example of the local endpoint’s ID as clarified in currently amended claim 1.” Id.
The Examiner is unpersuaded of error. To resolve the question of patentability under § 103, the Examiner begins by construing the term “identifier” as recited in claim 1. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); MPEP §§ 2111.0l(IV), 2173.05(a)(III).
The Examiner finds the term “identifier” is disclosed consistently throughout the Specification as being an IP address of an endpoint. See Spec. ¶¶ 28 (disclosing each endpoint 102 is assigned a “unique identifier (ID), which is a non-routable IP address from the reserved IP address space.”), 29 (disclosing an identifier of a peer endpoint is in a NAT-Traversal table (i) by the name “Neighbor ID” and (ii) represented by an IP address octet), 46 (disclosing an endpoint possessing its “own identifier (ID 250.250.250.1)” represented by an IP address octet), 79 (disclosing each local endpoint has “an identifier (ID).”). Thus, the Examiner finds Applicants have acted as their own lexicographer to assign the term “identifier” a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning— an IP address of an endpoint. Therefore, to the extent Applicants argue the claimed local endpoint’s identifier is only a non-routable IP address (see Spec. ¶ 28), such argument is not commensurate with the unique definition provided by the Specification and thus not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Based on this unique definition, the Examiner finds Sengodan teaches a local endpoint having an identifier. Notably, Sengodan teaches “Inner IP header 208 contains the public address (B.2) that the RSIP server assigns device 204.” Sengodan ¶ 15. Sengodan, then, teaches an endpoint IP device item 204 having a public address (B.2).
Claim 1 was amended to recite “wherein the local endpoint’s ID is different from both (a) the local endpoint’s public IP address for controller packets and (b) the local endpoint’s public IP address for endpoint packets.” At the outset, the Examiner notes the local endpoint’s identifier may be a public IP address so long as local endpoint’s identifier is different from both the local endpoint’s public IP address for controller packets and the local endpoint’s public IP address for endpoint packets. Thus, to the extent Applicants argue the claimed local endpoint’s identifier cannot be any public IP address, such argument is not commensurate with the unique definition provided by the Specification and thus not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner relies principally on Sengodan for teaching many of the recited elements of claim 1. Of particular note, the Examiner finds Sengodan teaches a local endpoint having (i) an identifier as discussed above and (ii) a public IP address for endpoint packets, wherein the local endpoint’s identifier is different from the local endpoint’s public IP address for endpoint packets. The Examiner further finds Sengodan’s local endpoint does not have a public address for controller packets, turning to Warrick to show that having a public address for controller packets is known in the art. Moreover, the Examiner finds Sengodan’s identifier is different from Warrick’s public address for controller packets.
Thus, the Examiner proposes to include Warrick’s teaching with Sengodan, such that the combined system predictably yields a local endpoint’s identifier different from both (a) the local endpoint’s public IP address for controller packets and (b) the local endpoint’s public IP address for endpoint packets. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments regarding Sengodan’s alleged individual shortcomings (see Response 6) are unavailing. Here, the rejection is not based solely on Sengodan, but rather on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Rejection
Regarding claim 1, while Sengodan teaches a method for an enterprise’s local endpoint (fig. 2a, item 204), the local endpoint having an identifier (ID) (“the public address (B.2) that the RSIP server assigns device 204” at ¶ 15), a private Internet Protocol (IP) address (“the private address (i.e., A.1) for IP device 204” at ¶ 15), and a different public IP address for endpoint packets (“IP device 205 sends a datagram containing the public address (B.20) for IP device 205 in an Src field” at ¶ 16), the method comprising the local endpoint:
generating a probe packet (fig. 2b, item 206a) having
(i) an outer IP header (“Outer IP Hdr” at fig. 2b; fig. 2b, item 207) comprising the local endpoint’s private IP address as the outer IP header’s source address (“Outer IP header 207 contains the private address (i.e., A.1) for IP device 204 in a source (Src) field” at ¶ 15) and
(ii) an inner IP header (“Inner IP Hdr” at fig. 2b; fig. 2b, item 208) comprising the local endpoint’s ID as the inner IP header’s source address (“Inner IP header 208 contains the public address (B.2) that the RSIP server assigns device 204 in an src field” at ¶ 15),
wherein the local endpoint’s ID (“the public address (B.2) that the RSIP server assigns device 204” at ¶ 15) is different from the local endpoint’s public IP address for endpoint packets (“IP device 205 sends a datagram containing the public address (B.20) for IP device 205 in an Src field” at ¶ 16); and
transmitting (“IP device 204 desires to send a datagram to IP device 205” at ¶ 15) the probe packet towards a remote endpoint (fig. 2b, item 205) of the enterprise,
Sengodan does not teach (A) the local endpoint being located behind a Symmetric Network Address Translation (Sym-NAT) node; and (B) the local endpoint having a public IP address for controller packet, wherein the local endpoint’s ID is different from the local endpoint’s public IP address for controller packets.
(A)
Fei teaches an endpoint located behind a Sym-NAT node (“endpoint is behind a symmetric NAT device” at ¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Sengodan’s local endpoint to be located behind a Sym-NAT node as taught by Fei “provide improved network security to devices.” Fei ¶ 5.
(B)
Warrick teaches a device having a public IP address for controller packets (“inform the guest device of the public IP address of the system controller 102” at ¶ 187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Sengodan’s local endpoint to have a public IP address for controller packets (and thus the local endpoint’s ID is different from the local endpoint’s public IP address for controller packets) as taught by Warrick “to hand-off communications and enable the guest device and the system controller 102 to directly communicate with each other.” Warrick ¶ 187.
Regarding claim 5, Sengodan teaches an enterprise’s local endpoint (fig. 2a, item 204) comprising: at least one processor (“IP device 204” at ¶ 14; “the term ‘IP device’ is a network device that provides at least host and/or client and/or server functionality in a well-known manner.” at ¶ 9; Sengodan’s IP device at least suggests including at least one processor); and at least one memory (Sengodan’s IP device at least suggests including at least one memory) storing instructions that, upon being executed by the at least one processor, cause the local endpoint at least to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 5.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sengodan in view of Fei, in further view of Warrick, and in further view of Indiresan et al. (US 2020/0036610 A1; filed July 24, 2018).
Regarding claim 3, Sengodan does not teach wherein: the probe packet is encrypted; and the local endpoint generates the encrypted probe packet by (i) encrypting the probe packet’s payload and (ii) encapsulating the encrypted payload and the inner IP header.
Indiresan teaches a packet is encrypted (fig. 4, item 224; “encrypted-encapsulated packet 224” at ¶ 62); and
a device (“switch ASIC 212 is configured to generate . . . an encapsulated secure packet 224” at ¶ 50) generates the encrypted packet by (i) encrypting the packet’s payload (“an encrypted, secured payload 228” at ¶ 62) and (ii) encapsulating the encrypted payload and an inner IP header (“encrypted-encapsulated packet 402 including an encrypted, secured payload 228 that includes . . . an inner IP header (shown as “IP” 422)” at ¶ 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Sengodan’s probe packet to be encrypted and for Sengodan’s local endpoint to generate the encrypted probe packet by (i) encrypting the probe packet’s payload and (ii) encapsulating the encrypted payload and the inner IP header as taught by Indiresan to “facilitate the monitoring of said secure traffic in a fabric network in an end-to-end manner throughout the network. Such monitoring can be beneficially used, for example, for analytics, performance analysis, and network debugging/troubleshooting.” Indiresan ¶ 14.
Regarding claim 7, claim 3 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 7.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sengodan in view of Fei, in further view of Warrick, in further view of Indiresan, and in further view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0066604 A1; filed Aug. 30, 2021).
Regarding claim 4, Sengodan does not teach wherein the local endpoint: encrypts the probe packet’s payload using Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) encryption; and encapsulates the encrypted payload and the inner IP header using Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VxLAN) encapsulation.
Huang teaches encrypting a packet’s payload using ESP encryption (“a first payload portion 362A can be encrypted based on ESP” at ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Sengodan’s local endpoint to encrypt the probe packet’s payload using ESP encryption as taught by Huang to “improve throughput of encrypted network traffic.” Huang ¶ 15.
Indiresan teaches encapsulating using VxLAN encapsulation (“VXLAN-GPE Encrypted-Encapsulated Packet” at ¶ 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Sengodan/Fei/Warrick/Indiresan/Huang combination’s encrypted payload and inner IP header to be encapsulated using VxLAN encapsulation to “facilitate the monitoring of said secure traffic in a fabric network in an end-to-end manner throughout the network. Such monitoring can be beneficially used, for example, for analytics, performance analysis, and network debugging/troubleshooting.” Indiresan ¶ 14.
Regarding claim 8, claim 4 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 4 are equally applicable to claim 8.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Sengodan in view of Fei, in further view of Warrick, in further view of Indiresan, and in further view of Kacker et al. (US 2007/0214273 A1; filed Mar. 10, 2006).
Regarding claim 15, Sengodan does not teach wherein the local endpoint’s ID is a non-routable IP address from reserved IP address space.
Kacker teaches a non-routable IP address (“a non-routable private IP address on an intranet 13” at ¶ 11) from reserved IP address space (“use a different address space, which is possibly private and non-routable.” at ¶ 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Sengodan’s local endpoint’s ID to be a non-routable IP address from reserved IP address space as taught by Kacker to provide “peer to peer communication that allow for bi-directional session initiation without the security compromises.” Kacker ¶ 18.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 15 are equally applicable to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 1.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 5, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of base claim 5.
Claims 9–14 and 17–20 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20050242948-A1 and US-20120157032-A1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to § 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 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 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP § 2181(I)(A)(citing Williamson).
2 Structural elements may appear in both product claims and process claims; thus, all claim types should be reviewed for the presence of “means-plus-function” limitations. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1006, 2021 USPQ2d 284, (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Applicants are free to invoke § 112 ¶ 6 for a claim term nested in a method claim. We have never held otherwise.”).
MPEP § 2181.