DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to the Amendment for Application Number 18839635 received on 7/14/2026.
Claims 15-17, 19-28, and 30-34 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 18 and 29 have been cancelled.
This application claims foreign priority to 202210513481.0, filed 05/11/2022.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 26, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites the limitations,
“detecting a service request packet initiated by a request client through a first service port;
in response to the detecting, using a socket detection mechanism, the service request packet, determining first client identification information…”, which appears to have minor grammatical issues.
It is suggested that the limitation, “using a socket detection mechanism” be moved to the initial limitation since it is describing the “detecting” step, resulting in:
“detecting, using a socket detection mechanism, a service request packet initiated by a request client through a first service port;
in response to the detecting the service request packet, determining first client identification information…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 34 is 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 claim 34 is directed to a “non-transitory tangible storage medium”.
While Applicant’s Specification provides examples of a “storage medium”, such examples do not explicitly define the term. Such is evident in Applicant’s Specification, at paragraph [0120], which recites, “The computer-readable storage medium may be, for example but not limited to”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “storage medium” reasonably covers embodiments that do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, such as a signal/carrier wave.
While the claim has been amended to include the term “non-transitory”, such does not appear to correct the deficiency because Applicant’s Specification recites, “For example, this embodiment of the present disclosure includes a computer program product, which includes a computer program carried on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, where the computer program includes program code for performing the method shown in the flowchart. In such an embodiment, the computer program may be downloaded and installed from a network through the communication apparatus 609, installed from the storage apparatus 608, or installed from the ROM 602.” (Spec, [0116]), to which it appears that Applicant intends the term “non-transitory” to cover carrier mediums (i.e. signals).
Additionally, while the claim has been amended to include the term “tangible”, such also does not correct the deficiency. MPEP §2106.03 recites, “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. “
The above MPEP section indicates that a signal maybe be considered tangible since it exists in the real world and having tangible causes and effects, but does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Based on all of the above, claim 34, being directed to a “non-transitory tangible storage medium”, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
It is recommended that the limitation be amended to explicitly remove signal embodiments in order to correct the above issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-17, 19-28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 has been amended to then recite the limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process…of a socket”.
The scope of claim 15, as amended, is indefinite because the newly added limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information” would never be true, because the preceding limitations of claim 15 positively recite, “determining first client identification information corresponding to the request”, and “determining a first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on the first client identification information”. That is, the preceding limitations positively recite that the first client identification information and the socket are both found.
As the newly added limitation never holds true, such causes ambiguities with respect to the intended scope of the claim. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected for the same reasons above, as they contain substantially similar limitations. Dependent claims 16-17, 19-25, 27-28, and 30-33 are rejected for the same reasons above by virtue of their dependencies to claims 15, 26, and 34.
For examination purposes, the limitation in question for claims 15, 26, and 34 will be considered and mapped accordingly, but correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is provided to assist Applicant with Examiner’s interpretation of the claims.
It should also be noted that the following is in addition to the issues raised in the above 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
While the newly added limitations of claim 15 have been mapped in the rejections herein, it is noted that claim 15 is directed to a method and the newly added limitation recites the contingent limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information…determining the first socket...”, which, includes the condition precedent, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, either “the first client identification information” or “a socket of a service response process” is found, to which the condition subsequent doesn’t occur, and therefore is not required to meet the claim. That is, as the claim may be practiced in which “the first client identification information” or “a socket of a service response process” is found, the “determining the first socket...” step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation. The entirety the limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file, determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port, wherein the first socket option comprises at least one of a service protocol, a process category, a process priority, and load information of a socket”, is therefore not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
See MPEP 2111.04, II., which recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Furthermore, the preceding limitations of claim 15 explicitly require both the first client identification information and the socket to be determined, and therefore found. Therefore, as claimed, the above conditional limitation would never hold true.
For examination purposes, the limitation will be considered and mapped accordingly, but correction is required for the limitation to be given patentable weight.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 15-17, 24-28, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangasharan et al. (US 7827152) in view of Craig et al. (US 20030053448) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20080222266).
Regarding claim 15, Gangasharan disclosed a service response method, comprising:
detecting a service request packet initiated by a request client through a first service port, and in response to the detecting, using a socket detection mechanism, the service request packet (Gangasharan, Fig. 6, 600-630, Gangasharan disclosed Application server with initialized socket service, and at 640, the Application server is “ready to receive network services requests”; 650, “Receive network service request”; col. 2, lines 5-10, “The application server's socket service may include an on-demand service initiator, which may intercept service client requests. When a client request is received the socket service may initialize the required network service”; col. 4, line 63 through col. 5, line 19, Gangasharan disclosed application server configuring socket service selectors for each network service; col. 8, lines 1-15, Gangasharan disclosed if a client request is received, the socket services may initialize a requested service; and col. 8, lines 38-44, servicing the request if all services are already initialized; col. 7, lines 38-54. Gangasharan disclosed, as part of its initialization, socket services 177 may access information on network service endpoints (e.g. ports)…information regarding network service endpoints may be read from a configuration file, such as from an XML file defining specific ports and their use. At block 530, the socket services 177 may bind server sockets for each port so that the server can receive client requests”), determining first client identification information corresponding to the request client based on the service request packet (Gangasharan, col. 6, line 49 through col. 7, line 16, Gangasharan disclosed, “When a client issues a request for a previously un-initialized service, socket services 177 may compare the timeout period for the request with the initialization time for the requested service”; The service request specifies both the specific service being requested, and the timeout period of the request, either of which, reasonably amounts to client identification information corresponding to the request client, and as both are from the service request, they are based on the service request packet; Separately, as the socket services may return a response to the requesting client, it is evident that returning a response requires obtaining identification of the client from the request in order to do so; See protocols utilized by the invention at col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 10, such as HTTP);
determining a first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on the first client identification information and a pre-established service data file (Gangasharan, col. 4, lines 44-48, Gangasharan disclosed, “in one embodiment, an individual network service may not be initialized until a client request is received for that service”; col. 6, line 49 through col. 7, line 16, Gangasharan uses the information of the service request to identify the service; col. 7, lines 38-54. Gangasharan disclosed, as part of its initialization, socket services 177 may access information on network service endpoints (e.g. ports)…information regarding network service endpoints may be read from a configuration file, such as from an XML file defining specific ports and their use. At block 530, the socket services 177 may bind server sockets for each port so that the server can receive client requests”; col. 8, lines 22-44, a network service may, during initialization, bind a server socket to an appropriate port and the service may be given a socket channel (or socket channel wrapper) that was created by the application server's socket services during application server initialization; col. 9, lines 54-61, Gangasharan disclosed the network service bound to a server socket and the socket services 177 may provide the service with the socket channel object, and the network service may process the client request), and
sending the service request packet to a first service response process through the first socket (col. 8, lines 22-44, a network service may, during initialization, bind a server socket to an appropriate port and the service may be given a socket channel (or socket channel wrapper) that was created by the application server's socket services during application server initialization; col. 9, lines 54-61, Gangasharan disclosed the network service bound to a server socket and the socket services 177 may provide the service with the socket channel object, and the network service may process the client request).
Gangasharan did not explicitly disclose wherein client identification information of a connected client having connected to a service response process and a socket of the service response process connected to the connected client are stored in correspondence in the service data file.
Craig disclosed wherein client identification information of a connected client having connected to a service response process and a socket of the service response process connected to the connected client are stored in correspondence in the service data file (Craig, [0046], Craig disclosed, “Once the client socket 350 and server socket 360 have been established and the connection information associated with each socket has been stored in the connection table 332, the classifier 325 may then classify subsequent packets by searching the connection table 332 to determine whether the packets correspond to an on-going connection. If the packet header of an incoming packet matches an entry stored in the connection table 332, the classifier 325 may then access the redirected destination address and destination port stored in the connection table 332 and modify the destination address and destination port of the packet header as described above”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gangasharan and Craig as they both provide teachings for providing network services, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of a connection table, as disclosed by Craig, within the teachings of Gangasharan in order to increase processing efficiency associated with classifying service request packets by avoiding the need to re-classify additional packets that correspond to on-going connections, which may comprise the majority of packets forwarded through the system (Craig, [0046]).
Gangasharan and Craig did not explicitly disclose in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file, determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port, wherein the first socket option comprises at least one of a service protocol, a process category, a process priority, and load information of a socket.
In an analogous art, Banerjee disclosed in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file, determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port, wherein the first socket option comprises at least one of a service protocol, a process category, a process priority, and load information of a socket (Banerjee, Figure 5, 500, 504 depicting a process for handling a new connection requests at the socket layer; [0034] Banerjee disclosed a network dispatcher that receives client requests and can redistribute the client requests among available sockets when a requested connection queue is full; [0035] “Application layer 300 includes a cluster of application servers that each provide the same services. The servers of application layer 300 read from and write to the sockets managed by socket layer 320.”; [0045] Banerjee disclosed making load balancing decisions when connection requests are redirected).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gangasharan and Craig with Bangerjee as they all provide teachings for providing network services, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the socket load balancing techniques of Banerjee within the teachings of Gangasharan and Craig in order to increase processing efficiency associated with servicing client request packets while avoiding dropping/rejecting such requests (Banerjee, [0034]), thereby increasing customer desirability of use.
Claim 26 recites an electronic device, comprising at least one processor and a storage apparatus configured to store at least one program, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 15.
Claim 34 recites a storage medium comprising computer executable instructions, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by a computer processor, are configured to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 15.
The combination of Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed such an apparatus comprising processor and storage for performing the limitations (Gangasharan, col. 9, line 65 through col. 10, line 10, application server having “processor” and “memory”) and storage medium (Gangasharan, col. 10, lines 11-25).
Therefore claims 26 and 34 are rejected under the same rationale applied above.
Regarding claims 16 and 27, Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed the service response method according to claim 15 and electronic device of claim 26, wherein the service request packet carries a protocol port of a request client, an Internet protocol address of the request client, a protocol port of a service response process, an Internet protocol address of the service response process, and a transport layer protocol (Craig, [0009], Craig disclosed the packet to include fields including “source address, destination address, source port, destination port, protocol field and device ID”; [0062], “TCP/IP packet header” “source or destination IP address”); and
the determining first client identification information corresponding to the request client based on the service request packet comprises: generating the first client identification information corresponding to the request client based on the protocol port of the request client, the Internet protocol address of the request client, the protocol port of the service response process, the Internet protocol address of the service response process, and the transport layer protocol (Craig, [0062] Craig disclosed performing classification on these fields of the header; [0046] Craig disclosed matching the packet header to an entry in the connection table). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claims 17 and 28, Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed the service response method according to claim 16 and electronic device of claim 27, wherein the generating the first client identification information corresponding to the request client based on the protocol port of the request client, the Internet protocol address of the request client, the protocol port of the service response process, the Internet protocol address of the service response process, and the transport layer protocol comprises:
performing calculation by using a first hash algorithm based on the protocol port of the request client, the Internet protocol address of the request client, the protocol port of the service response process, the Internet protocol address of the service response process, and the transport layer protocol, and using a calculated hash value as the first client identification information corresponding to the request client (Craig, [0066]-[0068], Craig disclosed, “The hashing tables may then be searched by dividing the packet header into plurality of hash fields based on the packet dimensions used by the hashing tables” and “the classification rules may be stored in five hashing tables, one for the source address, one for the destination address, one for the source port and destination port, one for the protocol field, and one for the device ID field.” Craig additionally disclosed the use of additional hash algorithms to determine if a packet header matches a classification rule with respect to hash fields of the packet).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed the service response method according to claim 15 and electronic device of claim 26, wherein after the sending the service request packet to a first service response process through the first socket, the method further comprises: storing the first client identification information corresponding to the request client and the first socket in correspondence in the service data file (Craig, [0046], Craig disclosed, “Once the client socket 350 and server socket 360 have been established and the connection information associated with each socket has been stored in the connection table 332, the classifier 325 may then classify subsequent packets by searching the connection table 332“).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed the service response method according to claim 15 and electronic device of claim 26, further comprising: in response to finding a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file, using the found socket of the service response process corresponding to the first client identification information as the first socket corresponding to the service request packet (Craig, [0046], Craig disclosed, “Once the client socket 350 and server socket 360 have been established and the connection information associated with each socket has been stored in the connection table 332, the classifier 325 may then classify subsequent packets by searching the connection table 332 to determine whether the packets correspond to an on-going connection. If the packet header of an incoming packet matches an entry stored in the connection table 332, the classifier 325 may then access the redirected destination address and destination port stored in the connection table 332 and modify the destination address and destination port of the packet header as described above.“; While the limitation has been mapped, it is noted that in the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 25, a socket of the service response process is not found, and therefore the limitations of claim 25 do not take place).
Claim(s) 19, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gangasharan et al. (US 7827152) in view of Craig et al. (US 20030053448) and Banerjee et al. (US 20080222266) and further in view of Forman (US 7376955).
Regarding claims 19 and 30, Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee disclosed the service response method according to claim 15 and electronic device of claim 26, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the first socket option comprises a process flag, and the process flag is used to reflect a correspondence between a socket and a service response process; and the determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port comprises: determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a process flag of the at least one socket for detecting the first service port.
Forman disclosed wherein the first socket option comprises a process flag, and the process flag is used to reflect a correspondence between a socket and a service response process; and the determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port comprises: determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a process flag of the at least one socket for detecting the first service port (Forman, col. 3, lines 34-53, Forman disclosed a configuration file defining the services provided by the server and corresponding ports that are used to provide those services, and “One or more service interface subclasses are derived from the abstract base class. The service interface subclasses represent the services provided by the server on corresponding sockets. When a client connects to a socket, then a service interface subclass defined for that socket services the client connection.”; col. 5, lines 1-22, Forman disclosed the configuration file including description of parameters for the sockets, including a type of service to be created for the port, to which sockets are created and having socket descriptors. The descriptors amount to the process flag that reflect a correspondence between a socket and a service).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee with Forman as they both provide teachings for providing network services, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the utilization of descriptors in Forman’s configuration file within the combined teachings of Gangasharan Craig and Banerjee in order to allow for the handling of multiple client requests, enabling the processing of client requests on different sockets corresponding to the client request (Forman, col. 1, lines 30-40), thereby increasing processing efficiency associated with socket assignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, Gangasharan and Craig disclosed the service response method according to claim 19, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the service response process comprises an old service response process for connecting to a service resource before a service version update and a new service response process for connecting to a service resource after the service version update; and the determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a process flag of the at least one socket for detecting the first service port comprises:
determining, based on the process flag of the at least one socket for detecting the first service port, a socket corresponding to the new service response process as a candidate socket; and determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on the candidate socket.
Claims 21-22 are objected to by virtue of their dependencies to claim 20.
Regarding claims 23 and 31, Gangasharan and Craig disclosed the service response method according to claim 18, and electronic device of claim 29, wherein the first socket option further comprises a protocol flag, and the protocol flag is used to reflect a correspondence between a socket and a packet type of the service request packet; and the determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port comprises: determining a socket corresponding to the packet type corresponding to the service request packet as a candidate socket based on the protocol flag of the at least one socket for detecting the first service port; and determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on the candidate socket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 with respect to the pending 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the pending 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 34, Applicant asserts, “Claim 34 has been amended to include “non-transitory” and as such respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection”.
In response, the 35 USC 101 rejection explained that the inclusion of “non-transitory” did not appear to correct the deficiency based on the language of Applicant’s Specification, which recites, “For example, this embodiment of the present disclosure includes a computer program product, which includes a computer program carried on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, where the computer program includes program code for performing the method shown in the flowchart. In such an embodiment, the computer program may be downloaded and installed from a network through the communication apparatus 609, installed from the storage apparatus 608, or installed from the ROM 602.” (Spec, [0116]), to which it appears that Applicant intends the term “non-transitory” to cover carrier mediums (i.e. signals).
This language appears that Applicant intends the term “non-transitory” to cover carrier mediums (i.e. signals) as well. As such, the amendment to include the term “non-transitory” does not correct the deficiency.
Additionally, including the term “tangible” does not correct the deficiency. MPEP §2106.03 recites, “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. “
It is recommended that the limitation be amended to explicitly remove signal embodiments in order to correct the issue.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15, 26, and 34 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied above.
Examiner provides the following in order to assist applicant in making any amendments.
While the newly added limitations to claims 15, 26, and 34 have been mapped above, it should be noted that the newly added limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information” never holds true, because the preceding limitations positively recite, “determining first client identification information corresponding to the request”, and “determining a first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on the first client identification information.”
Additionally, with respect to claim 15, while the limitation has been mapped in the above rejection, it is noted that the limitation, “in response to having not found the first client identification information or a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file, determining the first socket corresponding to the service request packet based on a first socket option of at least one socket for detecting the first service port, wherein the first socket option comprises at least one of a service protocol, a process category, a process priority, and load information of a socket”, is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, “the first client identification information” is found (i.e. the condition doesn’t happen). As the claim may be practiced to which “the first client identification information” is found, the “determine[ing] the first socket...” step is not required to meet the claim.
See MPEP 2111.04, II., which recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
It is suggested that claim 15 be amended to include a preceding limitation, “failing to find both the first client identification information and a socket of a service response process corresponding to the first client identification information based on the pre-established service data file”, as such would positively recite the condition precedent holding true, thereby requiring the subsequent limitations of the claim.
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 JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights