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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 16 January 2026.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025 has being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant, in substance, argues that the applied prior art of record does not disclose or suggest:
A) unassigning, from the first machine, a network address in the first network protocol addressing scheme (IPv4) in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme.
B) Indicating the unassigned network address is available for transfer to a third party.
In response to applicant’s argument,
A) First of all, Abrol is comprehensive reference that teaches technique for dual-stack network communication comprising device capable of communicating in both IPv4 communication protocol and IPv6 communication protocol (see Abrol, ¶ [0007]). With that said, if the disclosed mobile wireless communication devices (WCD) in Abrol is able to communicate using IPv6 address, then the IPv4 is release/unassigned since the goal is to conserve IPv4 address due to its scarcity. Accordingly, the Abrol teaches unassigning (releasing/free) IPv4 address since communication can occur using IPv6 (see Abrol, ¶ [0026] and [0029]). Therefore, the applied prior art of record indeed teaches unassigning, from the first machine, a network address in the first network protocol addressing scheme (IPv4) in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme, as currently presented in the claims.
B) The applied prior art of record in particular Abrol indeed teaches Indicating the unassigned network address is available for transfer to a third party. Specifically, paragraph 30 of Abrol teaches releasing [unassigning] IPv4 address so that it is available to be assigned to other devices. This clearly shows that the address is released so that it can be transferred to other devices that need IPv4 in order to communicate. As such the applied prior art of record teaching the argued limitations as currently recited in the claims.
Applicant employs broad language, which includes the use of word, and phrases, which have broad meanings in the art. In addition, Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim language, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. As the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is advised that, in order to further expedite the prosecution of the application in response to this action, Applicant should amend the base claims to describe in more narrow detail the true distinguishing features of Applicant’s claim invention.
Failure for Applicant to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims with scope parallel to the Applicant in the response, and reiterates the need for the Applicant to more clearly and distinctly defines the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
4. Claim1 id objected to because of the following informalities: The claim includes the limitation “indicating the unassigned network address as available for transfer to a third party. The phrase “as” should be changed to “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrol et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0004940 in view of Perreault et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0182691
Regarding claim 1, Abrol discloses a computer program product for reclaiming network addresses in a first network protocol addressing scheme, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that when executed performs operations, the operations comprising: determining a first machine using the first network protocol addressing scheme to communicate with a second machine over a network (see Abrol, ¶ [0009] and [0022]; device capable of communicating using first network protocol address type with a second device is disclosed); and configuring the first machine to communicate with the second machine using the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme unassigning, from the first machine, a network address in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first machine to communicate with the second machine in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0026] and [0029]; first device is configured to use second network protocol type to communication with the second device); and indicating the unassigned network address as available for transfer to a third party (see, Abrol, ¶ [0030]).
Although Abrol discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme.
Perreault teaches determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme (see Perreault, ¶ [0008], [0023] and [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Perreault with that of Abrol in order to efficiently verify that the second protocol type is supported by the device.
Regarding claim 2, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first network protocol addressing scheme comprises an Internet Protocol version 4 addressing scheme and wherein the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises an Internet Protocol version 6 addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: determining whether a domain name record for the server indicates a network address for the server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the domain name record for the server indicates the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0042] and Perreault, ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: processing a log of communications to the server to determine whether different server aliases are used to communicate with the server; and determining whether the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases for the server, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases (see Abrol, ¶ [0023] and Perreault, ¶ [0008] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a server and the second machine comprises a client communicating with the server over the network, wherein the determining whether the client supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: receiving a request from the client to access the server using the first network protocol addressing scheme; returning a response to the request to the client to redirect the client to access an alternate server using a network address in the second network protocol addressing scheme; and determining whether the client accessed the alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to the redirect in the returned response, wherein the client is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the client accessed the alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0021] and Perreault, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a server and the second machine comprises a client communicating with the server over the network, wherein the determining whether the client supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: receiving a request from the client to access the server using the first network protocol addressing scheme; and determining whether the client accesses an alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the client is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the client accessed the alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0022] and Perreault, ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the operations of the determining the first machine, determining whether the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme, and the configuring the first machine are performed for a plurality of a first set of machines in a first network that communicate with a second set of machines over the network comprising a second network, wherein the operations performed for the first set of machines further comprise: indicating network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first set of machines that communicate with the second set of machines that support the second network protocol addressing scheme in a reclamation list; and processing the reclamation list to configure the machines in the first set of machines having network addresses indicated in the reclamation list to communicate with the second set of machines using the second network protocol addressing scheme to transfer ownership of the network addresses indicated in the reclamation list to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0024] and Perreault, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the operations of the determining the first machine, determining whether the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme, and the configuring the first machine are performed for a first set of machines in a first network that communicate with a second set of machines over the network comprising a second network, wherein the operations performed for the first set of machines further comprise: indicating network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first set of machines that communicate with the second set of machines that support the second network protocol addressing scheme in a reclamation list; determining whether all addresses in a block of addresses in a subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme are indicated in the reclamation list; and indicating the subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme as available for transfer to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the operations further comprises: determining an owner of a specified machine of the second set of machines communicating with one of the first set of machines using a network address in the subnet of network addresses not in the reclamation list; determining a value of the owner of the specified machine to an operator of the first set of machines; and adding the network address of one of the first set of machines communicating with the specified machine to the reclamation list in response to determining that the value of the owner to the operator of the first set of machines is below a threshold value, wherein the subnet of network addresses is indicated as available for transfer in response to adding all network addresses in the subnet of network addresses to the reclamation list that were determined to not be in the reclamation list in response to determining that values of owners are below the threshold value (see Abrol, ¶ [0025]-[0026] and Perreault, ¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Abrol teaches a system for reclaiming network addresses in a first network protocol addressing scheme, comprising: a processor; and a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that when executed performs operations, the operations further comprising: determining a first machine using the first network protocol addressing scheme to communicate with a second machine over a network (see Abrol, ¶ [0009] and [0022]; device capable of communicating using first network protocol address type with a second device is disclosed); and configuring the first machine to communicate with the second machine using the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme unassigning, from the first machine a network address in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first machine to communicate with the second machine in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0026] and [0029]; first device is configured to use second network protocol type to communication with the second device); and indicating the unassigned network address as available for transfer to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0030]).
Although Abrol teaches the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme.
Perreault teaches determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme (see Perreault, ¶ [0008], [0023] and [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Perreault with that of Abrol in order to efficiently verify that the second protocol type is supported by the device.
Regarding claim 11, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: determining whether a domain name record for the server indicates a network address for the server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the domain name record for the server indicates the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0042] and Perreault, ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: processing a log of communications to the server to determine whether different server aliases are used to communicate with the server; and determining whether the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases for the server, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases (see Abrol, ¶ [0023] and Perreault, ¶ [0008] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a server and the second machine comprises a client communicating with the server over the network, wherein the determining whether the client supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: receiving a request from the client to access the server using the first network protocol addressing scheme; and determining whether the client accesses an alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the client is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the client accessed the alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0021] and Perreault, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the operations of the determining the first machine, determining whether the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme, and the configuring the first machine are performed for a first set of machines in a first network that communicate with a second set of machines over the network comprising a second network, wherein the operations performed for the first set of machines further comprise: indicating network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first set of machines that communicate with the second set of machines that support the second network protocol addressing scheme in a reclamation list; determining whether all addresses in a block of addresses in a subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme are indicated in the reclamation list; and indicating the subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme as available for transfer to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the operations further comprises: determining an owner of a specified machine of the second set of machines communicating with one of the first set of machines using a network address in the subnet of network addresses not in the reclamation list; determining a value of the owner of the specified machine to an operator of the first set of machines; and adding the network address of one of the first set of machines communicating with the specified machine to the reclamation list in response to determining that the value of the owner to the operator of the first set of machines is below a threshold value, wherein the subnet of network addresses is indicated as available for transfer in response to adding all network addresses in the subnet of network addresses to the reclamation list that were determined to not be in the reclamation list in response to determining that values of owners are below the threshold value (see Abrol, ¶ [0025]-[0026] and Perreault, ¶ [0091]).
Regarding claim 16, Abrol discloses a computer implemented method for reclaiming network addresses in a first network protocol addressing scheme, comprising: determining a first machine using the first network protocol addressing scheme to communicate with a second machine over a network (see Abrol, ¶ [0009] and [0022]; device capable of communicating using first network protocol address type with a second device is disclosed); and configuring the first machine to communicate with the second machine using the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme unassigning, from the first machine a network address in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first machine to communicate with the second machine in response to determining that the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0023]-[0024]; first device is configured to use second network protocol type to communication with the second device) ; and indicating the unassigned network address as available for transfer to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0030]).
Although Abrol discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme.
Perreault teaches determining whether the second machine supports a second network protocol addressing scheme; (see Perreault, ¶ [0008], [0023] and [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Perreault with that of Abrol in order to efficiently verify that the second protocol type is supported by the device.
Regarding claim 17, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: determining whether a domain name record for the server indicates a network address for the server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the domain name record for the server indicates the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0042] and Perreault, ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a client machine and the second machine comprises a server accessed by the client machine over the network, wherein the determining whether the server supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: processing a log of communications to the server to determine whether different server aliases are used to communicate with the server; and determining whether the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases for the server, wherein the server is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the second network protocol addressing scheme is used to communicate with one of the different server aliases (see Abrol, ¶ [0023] and Perreault, ¶ [0008] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the first machine comprises a server and the second machine comprises a client communicating with the server over the network, wherein the determining whether the client supports the second network protocol addressing scheme comprises: receiving a request from the client to access the server using the first network protocol addressing scheme; and determining whether the client accesses an alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme, wherein the client is determined to support the second network protocol addressing scheme in response to determining that the client accessed the alternate server using the second network protocol addressing scheme (see Abrol, ¶ [0021] and Perreault, ¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Abrol-Perreault teaches wherein the determining the first machine, determining whether the second machine supports the second network protocol addressing scheme, and the configuring the first machine are performed for a first set of machines in a first network that communicate with a second set of machines over the network comprising a second network, wherein the operations performed for the first set of machines further comprise: indicating network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme used by the first set of machines that communicate with the second set of machines that support the second network protocol addressing scheme in a reclamation list; determining whether all addresses in a block of addresses in a subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme are indicated in the reclamation list; and indicating the subnet of network addresses in the first network protocol addressing scheme as available for transfer to a third party (see Abrol, ¶ [0030]-[0031]).
Prior Art of Record
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights