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 .
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 5 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation "the IP subnet of the first group" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The IP subnet stated in Claim 1 is not explicitly tied to the first group or the second group. The Examiner interprets the IP subnet of the first group to be a different IP subnet than the IP subnet stated in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 recites the limitation "the IP subnet of the first group" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The IP subnet stated in Claim 6 is not explicitly tied to the first group or the second group. The Examiner interprets the IP subnet of the first group to be a different IP subnet than the IP subnet stated in Claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Mang et al (“Mang”, US 20220321526).
Regarding Claim 1, Mang teaches a system for internet protocol (IP) address allocation, the system comprising:
at least one non-transitory memory configured to store computer executable instructions (par 56; par 59);
and at least one processor configured to execute the computer executable instructions to (par 56; 59):
determine a height of a binary tree based on a size of an IP subnet (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The height of a binary tree is the prefix level. The size of an IP subnet is the prefix of each subnet, which indicates its size.),
wherein the binary tree comprises a plurality of levels and a plurality of nodes, and each level of the plurality of levels includes at least one node of the plurality of nodes (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.);
select a first set of nodes of the plurality of nodes to allocate the IP address for a first group (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out nodes /17 and another crossed-out node /18.),
wherein each node of the first set of nodes belongs to a different level of the plurality of levels (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.);
and assign a second set of nodes of the plurality of nodes as free nodes in the binary tree (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.),
wherein each node of the second set of nodes belongs to the different level of the plurality of levels (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.).
Regarding Claim 2, Mang teaches the system of claim 1.
Mang further teaches wherein each node of the first set of nodes is a left child node of a parent node corresponding to a level of the plurality of levels of the binary tree (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.).
Regarding Claim 3, Mang teaches the system of claim 2.
Mang further teaches wherein each node of the second set of nodes is a right child node of the parent node corresponding to the level of the plurality of levels (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.),
and wherein each node of the second set of nodes corresponds to a node of the first set of nodes (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.).
Regarding Claim 4, Mang teaches the system of claim 1.
Mang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to allocate the IP address for the first group till a level of the plurality of levels at which a node of the plurality of nodes is assigned to the first group (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.).
Regarding Claim 5, Mang teaches the system of claim 1.
Mang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to utilize a first free node of the second set of nodes to initiate allocation of an IP address of a second group in the binary tree (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.),
and wherein a distance between the IP subnet of the first group and an IP subnet of the second group is maximum in the binary tree (Fig. 2, refer to the origin block, par 20; Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels. The first set of nodes and first group can also include a crossed out nodes /19. The second set of nodes can also include the origin block node /13. The distance between the node /13 and 19 is maximum in the binary tree.).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected with same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang further teaches wherein determining the height of the binary tree comprises using a specific algorithm based on the size of the IP subnet (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; par 59; par 63; The height of a binary tree is the prefix level. The size of an IP subnet is the prefix of each subnet, which indicates its size. The specific algorithm is the application/program used.).
Regarding Claim 9, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang further teaches wherein assigning the second set of nodes as free nodes comprises implementing a priority system for free nodes based on their level in the binary tree (Fig. 10, elements {1004, 1021}, par 27; The free subnets are counted at each prefix level (priority system) from /14 until /19 as shown in Fig. 10.).
Regarding Claim 11, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang teaches further comprising utilizing a first free node of the second set of nodes to initiate allocation of an IP address for a second group (Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels.).
Regarding Claim 12, Mang teaches the method of claim 11.
Mang teaches further wherein a distance between the IP subnet of the first group and an IP subnet of the second group is maximum in the binary tree (Fig. 2, refer to the origin block, par 20; Fig. 6, refer to the binary tree with subnets, par 19-21; par 24-27; par 46; The first set of nodes is a crossed-out node /17 and another crossed-out node /18. The second set of nodes is a free node /17 and another free node /18. The plurality of levels are the prefix levels. The first set of nodes and first group can also include a crossed out nodes /19. The second set of nodes can also include the origin block node /13. The distance between the node /13 and 19 is maximum in the binary tree.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Watanabe et al (“Watanabe”, US 20140032753).
Regarding Claim 8, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang does not explicitly teach wherein selecting the first set of nodes comprises prioritizing nodes based on historical data of IP address usage.
Watanabe teaches wherein selecting the first set of nodes comprises prioritizing nodes based on historical data of IP address usage (par 187).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mang with the node prioritization of Watanabe because it allows for node discovery time to be reduced even with a computer system with a large number of nodes and a large number of supported protocols (Watanabe; par 11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Gorokhov et al (“Gorokhov”, US 20080101261).
Regarding Claim 10, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang does not explicitly teach wherein each node in the second set of nodes is a direct sibling of a node in the first set of nodes.
Gorokhov teaches wherein each node in the second set of nodes is a direct sibling of a node in the first set of nodes (Fig. 2, elements {11, 12, 47}, par 53; The first set of nodes are the nodes 47 branching from 11. The second set of nodes are the nodes 47 branching from 12.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mang with the binary tree of Gorokhov because it overcomes issues related to fragmentation in an assignment based solely on a binary node channel tree and minimizes the issues related to granularity (Gorokhov; par 12).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Lin et al (“Lin”, US 20100293327).
Regarding Claim 13, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang does not explicitly teach further comprising using a defragmentation algorithm to periodically reorganize the binary tree to reduce IP address fragmentation.
Lin teaches further comprising using a defragmentation algorithm to periodically reorganize the binary tree to reduce IP address fragmentation (par 79; par 51-53; The defragmentation algorithm are the steps used for defragmentation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mang with the defragmentation of Lin because it improves memory efficiency by keeping data better organized and sorted.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Singh et al (“Singh”, US 20210297324).
Regarding Claim 14, Mang teaches the method of claim 6.
Mang teaches reserving additional nodes in the binary tree for anticipated future needs (par 14; The reserved additional nodes in the binary tree are the free nodes.).
Mang does not explicitly teach further comprising implementing a forecasting model to predict future IP address requirements.
Singh teaches further comprising implementing a forecasting model to predict future IP address requirements (par 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mang with the Grafnet model of Singh because it allows for the port of IP addresses to be predicted when they are unknown (Singh; par 6; par 31), thereby improving connectivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In interpreting the currently amended claims, in light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claims 15-20, the closest prior art of record Mang et al (US 20220321526) in view of Subramanian (US 20140006575) in further view of Dooley et al (US 20060126629) in even further view of Madan et al (US 20160119278) does not teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for internet protocol (IP) address allocation, the method comprising: determining a height of a binary tree based on a size of an IP subnet, wherein the binary tree comprises a plurality of levels and a plurality of nodes, and each level of the plurality of levels includes at least one node of the plurality of nodes; selecting a first set of nodes of the plurality of nodes to allocate the IP address for a first group, wherein each node of the first set of nodes belongs to a different level of the plurality of levels; assigning a second set of nodes of the plurality of nodes as free nodes in the binary tree, wherein each node of the second set of nodes belongs to a different level of the plurality of levels; utilizing a first free node of the second set of nodes to initiate allocation of an IP address for a second group, wherein a distance between an IP subnet of the first group and an IP subnet of the second group is maximum in the binary tree; and allocating multiple IP subnets for the same group based on availability when the binary tree has limited space, wherein the method is configured to reduce the number of IP address fragmentations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Subramanian (US 20140006575), Abstract - A method, apparatus, and machine readable storage medium is disclosed for handling Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) at a first DHCP server, assigning a priority to each of a plurality of subnets and assigning to a client, an IP address from the highest priority subnet.
Dooley et al (US 20060126629), Abstract - An Internet Protocol address manager creates data containers for managing Internet Protocol addresses. Each data container can store one or more address blocks of Internet Protocol addresses and includes a container policy for managing the address blocks. Additionally, the Internet Protocol address manager creates links between the data containers to organize the data containers into a container hierarchy. The Internet Protocol address manager can then allocate the address blocks or portions thereof among the data containers in the container hierarchy according to the container policies. Moreover, each data container can be associated with a network or subnet of a computer network. Further, the Internet Protocol address manager can allocate or assign multiple Internet Protocol addresses of multiple Internet Protocol versions to subnets or hosts in the computer network.
Madan et al (US 20160119278), Abstract - A network device may detect packets being transmitted on a network to obtain detected packets, identify Internet Protocol (IP) addresses corresponding to the detected packets, and identify candidate IP subnets that do not include any IP address in the IP addresses corresponding to the detected packets. A particular IP subnet may be selected from the set of candidate IP subnets for allocation to a set of target devices. A network device may identify a set of candidate Internet Protocol (IP) subnets, select a particular IP subnet from the set of candidate IP subnets, and transmit, to other network devices, an advertisement including an intent to use the particular IP subnet. Responsive to determining that none of the other network devices are using the particular IP subnet, the network device may select the particular IP subnet for allocating to a set of target devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights