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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on August 26, 2024. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are amended, and claims 5 and 7 are canceled as per preliminary amendment submitted on 08/26/2024.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 was filed with the mailing date of the instant application on 08/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muneyuki Kawatani (US Publication 2021/0044523) hereafter Kawatani, in view of Ylonen et al. (US Publication 2010/0024026) hereafter Ylonen.
As per claim 1, Kawatani discloses a communication system comprising: a first host that includes a gateway configured to perform network processing on a packet that is transmitted from a device, the first host including first circuitry configured to attach a first mark indicating that a processing), wherein the first circuitry of the first host is configured to outputs the results of processing (paragraphs 0065, 0081: upon transmission packet corresponding to the results of processing being output from an application and via the transmission a packet MARK No.). Although, Kawatani discloses communication between devices to reduce any disruption in sending packet, but he fails to expressly disclose wherein the first circuitry of the first host is configured to forward the packet received from the second host to the gateway based on the first mark.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ylonen discloses the claimed limitation of wherein the first circuitry of the first host is configured to forward the packet received from the second host to the gateway based on the first mark (paragraphs 0054, 0064-66, 0112: incoming packets routes that are transmitted are tracked in the application gateway and forwards incoming packets towards their intended recipients).
Accordingly, Accordingly, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the network security art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated Ylonens’ teachings of application gateway system with a packet-switched with teaching of Kawatani, for the purpose of effectively establishing the communication session between two communication hosts for seamless.
As per claim 2, Kawatani in view of Ylonen discloses a communication system wherein each of the first host and the second host is configured to use comnuark to attach a corresponding mark among the first mark and the second mark to the packet, and use policy-based routing to forward the packet based on the corresponding mark (paragraphs 0080-84).
As per claim 3, Kawatani in view of Ylonen discloses a placement calculation apparatus for determining a host to which a gateway instance is to be deployed in a communication system including a plurality of hosts, comprising: circuitry configured to acquire resource information and the number of deployed gateway instances, for each host of the plurality of hosts (paragraphs 0029, 0060-63: GWs that are the destinations of packets corresponds to the mark set in the GW correlation table); and upon occurrence of a condition in which the host has a resource for deploying the gateway instance, determine to deploy one gateway instance to each host, and determine to deploy a given gateway instance that is undetermined to be deployed, to the host in which the gateway instance has been deployed (paragraphs 0029, 0060-63, 0071: transmission packet corresponding to the results of processing being output from application).
As per claim 4, Kawatani in view of Ylonen discloses the placement calculation apparatus wherein the circuitry is configured to determine an arrangement of an application instance to each host such that an equal number of instances is set in each host.
Claim 6 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claim 8 has similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455