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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to application number 18/843,194 received on 08/30/2024.
In accordance with Applicant’s filing, claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicants claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024, and 08/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the descriptive text labels need to be in English. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
From claim 8: “an obtaining module to obtain a workflow and configuration information”, “a configuration module to configure, based on the configuration information, and auxiliary process”, and “a generation module to generate a function block process”.
Claim 8 invokes §112(f) because it recites the nonce terms “obtaining module”, “configuration module”, and “generation module” followed by functional language, without being modified by sufficient structure to perform the actions/steps of the recited limitations.
When looking to the specification, the following is disclosed:
[Page 6] “As another example, some embodiments include a workflow execution apparatus (500) comprising: at least one memory (501), configured to store computer-readable code; and at least one processor (502), configured to call the computer-readable code, to perform one or more of the workflow execution methods (800) described herein.”. This is to be the interpretation given to workflow execution apparatus comprising “an obtaining module”, “a configuration module”, and “a generation module” (i.e., generic computing components).
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.
Claim 1-14 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because the bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. In particular, the claims recite:
From independent claim 1: “wherein the auxiliary process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource”, and “wherein the function block process is adapted to host a first idempotent short connection with the auxiliary process and/or a second idempotent short connection with the resource, and the auxiliary process is decoupled from the function block process.”. The phrase “adapted to” in claims 1/8 includes relative terms which render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the phrase “adapted to” means currently configured to perform the steps, or merely capable of being configured to perform the steps. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claims 1-7 are directed to a Method (i.e., Process) and claims 8-14 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., Manufacture). Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
Step 2A, Prong 1: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04
Independent claim 1 recites a method for gathering information about a process being performed by a user of a computing device. As drafted, the limitations recited by claim 1 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper).
The abstract limitations of claim 1 include: “obtaining a workflow and configuration information, wherein the workflow is generated based on a behavior tree construction operation; configuring an auxiliary process adapted to provide a resource for the workflow based on the configuration information, wherein the auxiliary process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource; and generating a function block process adapted to execute a function block in the workflow, wherein the function block process is adapted to host a first idempotent short connection with the auxiliary process and/or a second idempotent short connection with the resource, and the auxiliary process is decoupled from the function block process”. These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of additional elements in the claims, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, such as via observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
The abstract limitations of claim 8 include: “obtain a workflow and configuration information, wherein the workflow is generated based on a behavior tree construction operation performed by a user on a graphical user interface; configure, based on the configuration information, an auxiliary process adapted to provide a resource for the workflow, wherein the auxiliary process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource; and generate a function block process adapted to execute a function block in the workflow, wherein the function block process is adapted to host a first idempotent short connection with the auxiliary process and/or a second idempotent short connection with the resource, and the auxiliary process is decoupled from the function block process.”. These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of additional elements in the claims, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind, such as via observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
Claims 6, and 13 further narrow the abstract idea and introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely performed by a user on a graphical user interface from independent claim 1, an obtaining module, a configuration module, and a generation module to from independent claim 8, and the resource comprises at least one of the following: hardware detection data; software running in an internal storage; and a hardware driver from claims 6/13, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment).
With respect to the limitations for calls the long connection through a caller that has interoperability from claims 6/13, these limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., insignificant application), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely performed by a user on a graphical user interface from independent claim 1, an obtaining module, a configuration module, and a generation module to from independent claim 8, and the resource comprises at least one of the following: hardware detection data; software running in an internal storage; and a hardware driver from claims 6/13, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to the limitations for calls the long connection through a caller that has interoperability from claims 6/13, these limitations fail to add significantly more because at most, they amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., insignificant application), which does not add significantly more to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g): Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential); and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, and 14 recite the same abstract ideas (“mental processes”) as the independent claim along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself, along with the same or substantially same additional elements addressed.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Wilkins et al. (US 20120204032 A1, hereinafter “Wilkins”), in view of Ignatchenko (US 20180139131 A1, hereinafter “Ignatchenko”).
Regarding claims 1/8: Wilkins teaches:
a workflow execution method ([Abstract] computer-implemented key exchange system and methods for improving the usability of encryption technologies);
a workflow execution apparatus ([Fig. 8A] Processor 304);
obtaining a workflow and configuration information, ([Fig. 2A] Step 112 – Communication application retrieves user A encryption key from KES);
wherein the workflow is generated based on a behavior tree construction operation performed by a user on a graphical user interface ([0081] Referring to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2b, through user interfaces presented by the KES 10 to the network device 30, User A may invoke a user billing and verification process 101 by providing credit/debit card billing information to the KES 10, including the name on User A's credit card.);
configuring auxiliary process adapted to provide a resource for the workflow based on the configuration information, ([Abstract] One aspect of the present invention includes registering users, verifying user identity, and classifying users such that the users may send a communications such that communication recipients can verify the user identity and classification of the communication sender.).
Wilkins doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the auxiliary process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource; ([0199] In some embodiments in which latency-oriented router 120 is implemented as a part of a user device 110, some parts of the latency-oriented router 120 may be implemented as a web browser plugin (sometimes also referred to in the art as a web browser extension) that intercepts and initiates HTTP requests, Websocket requests and/or any other requests which may be initiated by the web browser.);
and generating a function block process adapted to execute a function block in the workflow, wherein the function block process is adapted to host a first idempotent short connection with the auxiliary process and/or a second idempotent short connection with the resource, and the auxiliary process is decoupled from the function block process. ([0420] In some embodiments, processors 243-245 may implement the detection of “hanging” TCP connections and the automated re-reissue of idempotent request(s), such as HTTP GET/OPTIONS/HEAD request. Such idempotent request(s) may be automatically re-issued without dropping the original request.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to conduct a handshake to exchange information with respect to “cooperation types” (Ignatchenko; [Abstract]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to establish long connections with the resource and short idempotent connections.
Regarding claims 2/9: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
enabling the auxiliary process to establish the long connection during execution of a start node of the workflow.
Ignatchenko teaches:
enabling the auxiliary process to establish the long connection during execution of a start node of the workflow. ([0103] In embodiments using Classic Bluetooth for connection 105, some additional exchanges may be necessary, such as a sequence of exchanges leading to the establishment of an asynchronous connection-less (ACL) or synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) link, with a subsequent exchange of packets over such established ACL or SCO link.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to include “co-op router magic number” information (Ignatchenko; [0104]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to establish long connections.
Regarding claims 3/10: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
enabling the auxiliary process to disconnect the long connection during execution of an end node of the workflow.
Ignatchenko teaches:
enabling the auxiliary process to disconnect the long connection during execution of an end node of the workflow. ([0243] a session may end (and/or be destroyed) after a certain amount of time has passed without further receiving any packets belonging to the session; [0119] At step 318, a logical channel may be established between cooperating routers 115A and 115B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so that a timeout may be configurable (Ignatchenko; [0243]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to end long connections.
Regarding claims 4/11: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
wherein when the function block process needs to access the resource, the function block process is enabled to establish the first idempotent short connection, to call the auxiliary process through the first idempotent short connection, so as to access the resource through the long connection, or the function block process is enabled to establish the second idempotent short connection, to access the resource through the second idempotent short connection.
Ignatchenko teaches:
wherein when the function block process needs to access the resource, the function block process is enabled to establish the first idempotent short connection, to call the auxiliary process through the first idempotent short connection, so as to access the resource through the long connection, or the function block process is enabled to establish the second idempotent short connection, to access the resource through the second idempotent short connection. ([0419] In some embodiments, other TCP processor 246 may establish one outgoing TCP connection for each incoming TCP connection. In some embodiments, other TCP processor 246 may balance outgoing TCP connections across different interfaces 204.; [0420] In some embodiments, processors 243-245 may implement the detection of “hanging” TCP connections and the automated re-reissue of idempotent request(s), such as HTTP GET/OPTIONS/HEAD request.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to balance outgoing TCP connections across different interfaces 204 (Ignatchenko; [0419]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to establish an idempotent connection.
Regarding claims 5/12: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
wherein when the function block process needs to end accessing the resource, the function block process is enabled to end the first idempotent short connection and/or end the second idempotent short connection.
Ignatchenko teaches:
wherein when the function block process needs to end accessing the resource, the function block process is enabled to end the first idempotent short connection and/or end the second idempotent short connection. [0137] At step 337, cooperating router 115A may send a message that an “emergency connection” is no longer needed (e.g., a message requesting to terminate the “emergency connection”), which message may be received by cooperating router 115B. At step 338, cooperating router 115B may send a message confirming that the “emergency connection” is terminated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so, so that an exchange of packets between cooperating routers 115 may effectively serve as a termination request and confirmation for the “emergency connection” (Ignatchenko; [0137]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to end an idempotent connection.
Regarding claims 6/13: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
wherein: the function block process calls the long connection through a caller that has interoperability;
and the resource comprises at least one of the following: hardware detection data; software running in an internal storage; and a hardware driver.
Ignatchenko teaches:
wherein: the function block process calls the long connection through a caller that has interoperability; ([0057] FIG. 1A is a schematic diagram illustrating an exemplary connection between user devices and a server through a traditional router.);
and the resource comprises at least one of the following: hardware detection data; software running in an internal storage; and a hardware driver. ([0057] The exemplary system shown in FIG. 1A includes user devices 110, traditional router 112, Internet service providers (ISPs) 140 and 148 and server 180.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to establish a Wi-Fi connection, an Ethernet connection, a Bluetooth connection or any other existing or future developed communication systems and/or protocols with similar functionalities (Ignatchenko; [0057]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to set up the connection through a device with interoperability in order to access a resource comprising communication services.
Regarding claims 7/14: Wilkins doesn’t teach:
generating a real-time operation process adapted to be called by the function block process based on the configuration information, wherein the real-time operation process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource and provide a real-time operation capability that is based on the resource;
and enabling the function block process to establish a third idempotent short connection when the function block process needs to be provided with the real-time operation capability, to call the real-time operation process through the third idempotent short connection, so as to obtain the real-time operation capability.
Ignatchenko teaches:
generating a real-time operation process adapted to be called by the function block process based on the configuration information, wherein the real-time operation process is adapted to host a long connection with the resource and provide a real-time operation capability that is based on the resource; ([0243] In one example, “latency-critical session” may start (and/or be created) when a UDP packet arrives, after which outgoing detector 220 may store information about source_IP, source_port, target_IP and/or target_port from the packet and associate the future packets with the session when the future packets arrive with these attributes. In some embodiments, a session may end (and/or be destroyed) after a certain amount of time has passed without further receiving any packets belonging to the session (with typical timeout values between 0.1 s and 60 s). Alternatively, timeout may be configurable and/or may depend on the “app type” of the latency-critical traffic. In some embodiments, only packets coming in one direction may count to keep the session alive (i.e., to prevent session end and/or destruction). For example, only packets from interface 202, or only packets from interface 204 (e.g., as reported by incoming detector 230) may count to keep the session alive.);
and enabling the function block process to establish a third idempotent short connection when the function block process needs to be provided with the real-time operation capability, to call the real-time operation process through the third idempotent short connection, so as to obtain the real-time operation capability. ([0052] The present disclosure comprises systems, methods, and apparatuses for cooperating routers. While the present invention is described and explained in the context of cooperating routers in communication with an internet service provider and end users, it is to be understood that it is not so limited and may be applicable to any systems, methods, and apparatuses directed to any packet processing communication networks.; [0125] FIG. 3B illustrates a flow diagram of an exemplary “emergency connection” cooperation type, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. In the embodiment of FIG. 3B, at step 322, both cooperating routers 115 may be operating normally, i.e., incoming packets at respective interfaces 202 may be forwarded to respective interfaces 204, and vice versa. One or both cooperating routers 115A and 115B may maintain their respective lists of currently active “sessions”, including, but not limited to, TCP sessions, UDP sessions and/or latency-critical sessions (described in more detail below). Currently active TCP sessions and UDP sessions may be detected and maintained as described in connection with latency oriented routers 120 (as described in more detail below) and/or as described in RFC2663, RFC3022, RFC4787 and/or RFC5382. Latency-critical sessions may be detected and maintained as described in more detail below.; [0126] At step 324, cooperating router 115A may determine it has communication problems with its upstream ISP 140A. As an illustrative example, such determination may be implemented by cooperating router 115A receiving a notification from the modem 118A or, while there are active sessions and/or outgoing packets, by observing that packets from interface(s) 204 are no longer received for a predetermined or configurable amount of time. As another example, such determination may be implemented by sending packets, including, but not limited to, Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) pings or UDP ping-like packets to an Internet server (not shown) and receiving no replies to these packets.; [0127] At step 326, cooperating router 115A may send an “emergency connection” request message, which message may be received by cooperating router 115B. Cooperating router 115A may use the inter-router communication interface 222 to send the message through connection 105 and/or a logical channel established over connection 105. Step 326 may be combined with step 332, which is described in more detail below.; See also [0128-0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Wilkins with Ignatchenko’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to provide services such as being a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server to user devices 110 and/or acting as a DHCP client with respect to its connection to ISP 140. (Ignatchenko; [0057]). By incorporating the teachings of Ignatchenko, one would’ve been able to establish a third idempotent connection.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
D. Rathnayake, A. Wickramarachchi, V. Mallawaarachchi, D. Meedeniya and I. Perera, "A Realtime Monitoring Platform for Workflow Subroutines," 2018 18th International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2018, pp. 41-47, which discloses a pluggable service module enabling remote monitoring of workflow execution.
Rafaeli et al. (WO 2015041694 A1), which discloses a system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and method for managing workflows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm 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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights