DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/04/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,261. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims follow obviousness-type double patenting rejection since they recite similar claim limitations.
Pending Application (18/906,704)
Patent (12,143,261)
1. A system comprising:
1. A system comprising:
a processing device; and a memory device that includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising:
a processing device; and a memory device that includes instructions executable by the processing device for causing the processing device to perform operations comprising:
detecting a transmission failure of a packet, the transmission failure occurring in a software-defined network;
detecting a transmission failure of a packet, the transmission failure occurring in a software-defined network;
identifying, via at least one debugger, a plurality of functions associated with the transmission failure of the packet between components in the software-defined network;
identifying, via at least one debugger, a plurality of functions associated with the transmission failure of the packet between components in the software-defined network;
generating, via the at least one debugger, log data for the plurality of functions by:
generating, via the at least one debugger, first log data and second log data for the plurality of functions by:
detecting the transmission failure of the packet from a first component of the software-defined network to a second component of the software-defined network;
detecting the transmission failure of the packet from a first component of the software-defined network to a second component of the software-defined network;
pairing a debugger with the first component or with the second component to generate the log data for a first function associated with sending the packet or for a second function associated with receiving the packet;
pairing a first debugger with the first component to generate the first log data for a first function associated with sending the packet;
pairing a second debugger with the second component to generate the second log data for a second function associated with receiving the packet;
determining, based on the log data, whether the first function or the second function is responsible for the transmission failure; and
determining, based on the first log data and the second log data, whether the first function or the second function is responsible for the transmission failure; and
identifying, based on the log data, a cause of the transmission failure related to the plurality of functions.
identifying, based on the first log data and the second log data, a cause of the transmission failure related to the plurality of functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification and the claims filed on October 4, 2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the available prior art(s).
With regards to the independent claims, available prior art(s) does/do not teach, singly or in combination, “detecting a transmission failure of a packet, the transmission failure occurring in a software-defined network; identifying, via at least one debugger, a plurality of functions associated with the transmission failure of the packet between components in the software-defined network; generating, via the at least one debugger, log data for the plurality of functions by: detecting the transmission failure of the packet from a first component of the software-defined network to a second component of the software-defined network; pairing a debugger with the first component or with the second component to generate the log data for a first function associated with sending the packet or for a second function associated with receiving the packet; determining, based on the log data, whether the first function or the second function is responsible for the transmission failure; and identifying, based on the log data, a cause of the transmission failure related to the plurality of functions”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZIA NAOREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/NAZIA NAOREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458