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 .
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 .
Double Patenting
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-disclaimen
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,761 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,107,761 B2 contains every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipated the claims of the instant application.
Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Instant Application 18/819,167
Pat. No. U.S. 12,107,761 B2
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first packet addressed to a destination node;
checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period;
in response to the threshold exceeding the packet counter, sending the first packet to an intermediate node, the intermediate node configured to route the first packet to a destination substrate address of the destination node; and
in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold;
wrapping, by the computing system, the first packet in a wrapper addressed to the destination substrate address to produce a wrapped first packet; and
sending, by the computing device, the wrapped first packet to the destination substrate address.
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first packet addressed to a destination node;
checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period;
in response to the threshold exceeding the packet counter, sending the first packet to an intermediate node, the intermediate node configured to route the first packet to a destination substrate address of the destination node; and
in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold:
sending, by the computing device, a query to the intermediate node, the query requesting the destination substrate address of the destination node;
receiving, by the computing device, a reply from the intermediate node, the reply identifying the destination substrate address and a set of processes that the intermediate node is configured to perform on the first packet;
wrapping, by the computing device, the first packet in a wrapper addressed to the destination substrate address to produce a wrapped first packet; and
sending, by the computing device, the wrapped first packet to the destination substrate address.
Claims 2-20
Claims 2-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “checking a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold”, “in response to the threshold exceeding the packet counter, sending the first packet to an intermediate node…” and “in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold, wrapping the first packet … and sending the wrapped first packet….” under Prong I step 2A. These steps constitute a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (observing a count of items, comparing the count to a numerical threshold, and deciding on one of two alternative actions based on the comparison). Alternatively, the steps can be characterized as certain methods of organizing human activity (managing or routing information according to predefined rules) or a mathematical concept (simple numerical comparison and conditional branching).
Under Prong II step 2A Practical Application The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements such as “a computing device / computing system (generic computer components)”; “receiving a first packet addressed to a destination node”; “sending the first packet to an intermediate node (configured to route the packet to a destination substrate address)”; “wrapping the first packet in a wrapper addressed to the destination substrate address”; and “sending the wrapped first packet to the destination substrate address”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or to use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Under step 2B, Under step 2B, these additional elements individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements including computing device, packet counter and destination node are merely generalized high level of generality and the method describe routine network function such as receiving, counting, and forwarding packets are using the generic component to perform their standard roles MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Re claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, these claims are similarly analyzed and rejected for being directed to an abstract idea of “Mental Process/Mathematical Relationship” and “Organizing Human Activity” without significantly more as detailed in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 above. In particular, there are additional elements in these claims however these additional elements including computing device, packet counter and destination node are merely generalized high level of generality and the method describe routine network function such as receiving, counting, and forwarding packets are using the generic component to perform their standard roles MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton (U.S. 2021/0112091 A1), Ronen et al. (U.S. 2003/0101357 A1), and further in view of Pohlack et al. (U.S. 9,106,257 B1).
Re claim 1, Compton discloses in Figures 1-6 a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a first packet addressed to a destination node (e.g. abstract, Figures 2 with traffics from the network and paragraphs [0006-0007]); and
in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold (e.g. paragraph [0032]), sending the first packet to an intermediate node, the intermediate node configured to route the first packet to a destination substrate address of the destination node and in response to the packet counter exceeding the threshold, sending, by the computing device, the first packet to the destination substrate address (e.g. paragraphs [0026, 0029-0030, 0035-0038, and 0062] wherein mitigation rules are determined to handle the detected traffics).
Compton fails to disclose in Figures 1-6 checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period.
However, Ronen et al. disclose the step of checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period (e.g. paragraph [0022, 0046, 0048, and 0062] where abnormal traffic is determined based on the packet counts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add checking, by the computing device, a packet counter to determine if the packet counter exceeds a threshold, the packet counter recording a number of packets addressed to the destination node that have been received during a first time period as seen in Ronen et al.’s invention into Compton’s invention because it would enable to isolate and prevent denial service attack.
Compton and Ronen discloses all limitations as presented above; however, Compton and Ronen fail to disclose wrapping/encapsulating a packet in a wrapper (~encapsulation header/metadata) addressed for the destination substrate and then sending the wrapped packet over the substrate.
Pahlock et al. disclose wrapping/encapsulating a packet in a wrapper (~encapsulation header/metadata) addressed for the destination substrate and then sending the wrapped packet over the substrate (e.g. Figure 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing data of the claimed invention to wrapping/encapsulating a packet in a wrapper (~encapsulation header/metadata) addressed for the destination substrate and then sending the wrapped packet over the substrate as seen in Pahlock et al.’s invention into Compton and Ronen et al.’s invention because it can travel correctly across the physical network (~the substrate) while preserving the original packet’s virtual/overlay addressing and isolation.
Re claim 8, it is a computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Re claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming the double patenting and 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 9,106,257 B1
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 PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights