DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/03/2025 Claims 1 and through 20 are presently pending and are present for examination.
3. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Paragada teaches the downstream path selection procedure that may be based on the PREP packets that are feedback from the leaf nodes to the root node. The PREP packets may be transmitted along the paths the PREQ packets are received and the intermediate nodes may determine the candidate paths to the leaf node. The PREQ and PREP frames are used to determine the downstream and upstream paths in the network (paragraphs 98-99).
Applicant argued that cited references do not disclose or suggest “wherein the network message causes an intermediary node of a plurality of intermediary nodes to send,
based on the network protocol, via one or more downstream paths toward the recipient node and the multicast IP address, one or more copies of the network message,”.
Examiner respectively disagrees. Pragada teaches the downstream path selection procedure that may be based on the PREP packets that are feedback from the leaf nodes to the root node. The PREP packets may be transmitted along the paths the PREQ packets are received and the intermediate nodes may determine the candidate paths to the leaf node. The PREQ and PREP frames are used to determine the downstream and upstream paths in the network (paragraphs 98-99). In addition, Pragada teaches a message in which source add, destination address , intermediate addresses as well as downstream/upstream direction and other parameters are included (at least Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). Therefore, it is obvious to modify the messages Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 to build a network message causes an intermediary node of a plurality of intermediary nodes to send, based on the network protocol, via one or more downstream paths toward the recipient node and the multicast IP address, one or more copies of the network message.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 8, and 16 broaden claim 1 of Sharma by eliminating at least the limitation “generate, based on the network protocol and a quantity of the one or more intermediary nodes, one or more copies of the network message, wherein a quantity of the one or more copies of the network message corresponds to the quantity of the one or more intermediary nodes” and deleting the determining, by a sending node, a network message”.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are have extracted “wherein a quantity of the one or more copies of the network message corresponds to the quantity of the one or more intermediary nodes” of the “generate, based on the network protocol and a quantity of the one or more intermediary nodes, one or more copies of the network message, wherein a quantity of the one or more copies of the network message corresponds to the quantity of the one or more intermediary nodes” and deleting the determining, by a sending node, a network message” claim 1 limitation of Sharma and rewording quantity to quantify.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claims 6, 15 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they have extracted “receiving, from the recipient node, a plurality of replies to the network message, wherein each reply of the plurality of replies corresponds to a unique downstream path comprising” limitation of the claim 1 of Sharma.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. [12,052,162 B2-hereafter Sharma] because they are substantially the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pragada et al. (WO 2024/124153 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 2011/0225311 A1) further in view of Kumar C S (US 9,059,901 B1).
For claim 1 Pragada teaches a method comprising:
sending, by a sending node to a recipient node via a plurality of intermediary nodes, a network message via a multicast Internet Protocol (IP) address (paragraph 39 “such as the
transmission control protocol (TCP), user datagram protocol (UDP) and the internet protocol (IP) in the TCP/IP internet protocol suite”) according to a network protocol, wherein the network message causes an intermediary node of a plurality of intermediary nodes to send, based on the network protocol, via one or more downstream paths toward the recipient node and the multicast IP address, one or more copies of the network message (paragraph 65 “sending path request broadcast (multicast) packet”, paragraph 75 “a relatively straightforward scheduling protocol is given as follows. A node sends test or data packets to its neighbors”, paragraph 98 “The downstream path selection procedure may be based on the path reply (PREP) packets that are feedback from the leaf nodes to the root node. The PREP packets may be transmitted along the paths the path request (PREQ) packets are received and the intermediate nodes may determine the candidate paths to the leaf node”, paragraph 99 “The PREQ and PREP frames are used to determine the downstream and upstream paths in the network”, paragraph 109 “The upstream (leaf-to-root) path formation procedure starts with the root node broadcasting a PREQ packet to the network”);
receiving, from the recipient node, a plurality of replies to the network message,
wherein each reply of the plurality of replies corresponds to a unique downstream path (paragraph 3 “receiving feedback for multiple candidate paths from at least one neighbor
node” and paragraph 93 “A destination/responder node is the leaf node that a PREQ packet is destined to and responds by sending a path reply (PREP) packet”); and
determining, based on the plurality of replies, a first end-to-end path for communication between the sending node and the recipient node (paragraph 60 “path selection conditions” and paragraph 141 “determine the optimal paths to the destinations”).
Pragada does not teach copy of network message.
However, Liu teaches Note that multiple copies of the RREQ might arrive along different paths to the destination. To increase the possibility of discovering a qualifying
path, the target sends back a RREP for each copy of the valid RREQ along the reverse path established by the RREQ (Liu: paragraph 94). In addition, Liu teaches The RREQ carries the sequence of hops, over which this copy of the RREQ was forwarded (Liu: paragraph 91).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teaching of Liu in the path selection of Pragada in order to increase the possibility of discovering a qualifying path, the target
sends back a PREP for each copy of the valid RREQ along the reverse paths
established by the RREQ (Liu: paragraph 94).
Pragada in view of Liu does not explicitly teach, via a multicast IP address.
However, Kumar teaches the access switch 130 (intermediary node) can be
configured to send a copy of the multicast data packet to the distribution switch 120 via
port 132A (i.e., to the port 122A of the distribution switch 120) or via the port 132B (i.e.,
to the port 122B of the distribution switch 120 or via the port 132B (i.e., to the port 122B
of the distribution switch 120). Similarly, the access switch 130 can be configured to
send another copy of the multicast data packet to the distribution switch 150 via the port
134A, or to the distribution switch 17 via the port 134B (Kumar: Fig. 1 "IP domain"
and column 6 lines 25-35).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before
The effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Kumar in the combined path selection of Liu and Pragada in order to send a copy of the multicast data packet from
a configured multiport access switch (an intermediary switch) to a destination through a
plurality of distribution switches (intermediary switches) in an IP domain network (
Kumar: Fig. 1 "IP domain" and column 6 lines 25-35).
For claim 2 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein a quantify of the plurality of replies to the network message is based on a quantify of the plurality of intermediate nodes (Pragada: paragraph 170 “as shown in FIG. 18, there are a plurality of nodes 1810 in communication with one another and exchanging signaling with one another, (e.g., Gateway Node 18101, Intermediate Node 18102, Neighboring Node 1 8103, Neighboring Node 2 18104, and Leaf Node 1810s)”).
For claim 3 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein a quantify of the one or more copies of the network message is based on a quantify of the plurality of intermediate nodes (Pragada: paragraph 170 “as shown in FIG. 18, there are a plurality of nodes 1810 in communication with one another and exchanging signaling with one another, (e.g., Gateway Node 18101, Intermediate Node 18102, Neighboring Node 1 8103, Neighboring Node 2 18104, and Leaf Node 1810s)”).
For claim 4 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising preventing, via the network protocol, each intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes from sending the one or more copies of the network message upstream towards the sending node (Liu: paragraph 79 “prevent congestion” and this is a design (configuration) option).
For claim 5 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein the unique downstream path of each reply of the plurality of replies to the network message comprises an end-to-end path of equal cost with respect to the sending node and the recipient node (Pragada: paragraph 180 “choosing path cost” and Liu: Fig. 6 “minimum path cost based on the received route/path reply messages”).
For claim 6 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein each copy of the one or more copies of the network message comprises a node identifier associated with an intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes and a destination IP address comprising the multicast IP address (Pragada: paragraph 72 “node IDs”).
For claim 7 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising causing the sending node and the recipient node to communicate via the first end-to-end path (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 8 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches a method comprising:
receiving, via a multicast IP address by a recipient node in communication with a sending node, a plurality of copies of a network message from a plurality of intermediary nodes that process network messages directed to the multicast IP address according to a network protocol, wherein the network message causes an intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes to: send, based on the network protocol, via one or more downstream paths toward the recipient node and the multicast IP address, a copy of the plurality of copies of the network message (as discussed in claim 1); and
sending, to the sending node via the plurality of intermediary nodes, a plurality of replies to the plurality of copies of the network message, wherein each reply of the plurality of replies corresponds to a unique downstream path (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 9 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein a quantify of the plurality of relies to the network message is based on a quantify of the plurality of intermediate nodes (as discussed in claim 2).
For claim 10 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein a quantify of the one or more copies of the network message is based on a quantify of the plurality of intermediate nodes (as discussed in claim 3).
For claim 11 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising causing, based on a determination by the sending node of a first end-to-end path based on the plurality of replies, the recipient node to communicate with the sending node via the first end-to-end path (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 12 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising causing, based on a determination of a network condition associated with the plurality of replies, at least one remedial action to be performed (Pragada: paragraph 167 “reacting to network condition”).
For claim 13 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising:
determining, based on the plurality of replies, at least one of:
a latency associated with an intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes (Pragada: paragraphs 57,59 “QoS, latency/delay constrained” and paragraph 68 “knowledge of latency”) ,
a failure of an intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes (Pragada: paragraph 74 “a link failure occurs between any neighboring nodes”), or
For claim 14 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising, preventing, via the network protocol, each intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes from sending the plurality of copies of the network message upstream towards the sending node (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 15 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein each copy of the plurality of copies of the network message comprises a node identifier associated with an intermediary node of the plurality of intermediary nodes and a destination IP address comprising the multicast IP address (as discussed in claim 6).
For claim 16 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches a method (as discussed in claim 1) comprising:
based on receipt of a network message sent from a sending node to a recipient node via a multicast Internet Protocol (IP) address and according to a network protocol, generating, by an intermediary node of a plurality of intermediary nodes, based on the network protocol and a quantity of one or more downstream paths toward the recipient node, one or more copies of the network message, wherein a quantity of the one or more copies of the network message corresponds to the quantity of the one or more downstream paths (as discussed in claim 1); and
sending, based on the network protocol, via the one or more downstream paths and the multicast IP address, the one or more copies of the network message, wherein each copy of the one or more copies of the network message comprises an identifier associated with the intermediary node (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 17 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising sending, to the sending node, one or more replies to the one or more copies of the network message received from the recipient node, to the sending node, the one or more replies (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 18 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising causing, based on a determination of a network condition associated with the plurality of replies, at least one remedial action to be performed (as discussed in claim 12).
For claim 19 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, wherein each copy of the one or more copies comprises a node identifier associated with the intermediary node and a destination IP address comprising the multicast IP address (as discussed in claim 6).
For claim 20 Pragada in view of Liu and further in view of Kumar teaches the method, further comprising:
receiving, via a first network interface at the intermediary node, the network message (Pragada: “Fig. 1B “interface 116” and Fig. 1C “radio interface 150”); and
sending, via the second interface determined based on the network protocol, the one or more copies of the network message (Pragada: “Fig. 1B “interface 116” and Fig. 1C “radio interface 150”).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhang et al. (US 11,838,850 B2).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights