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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments concerning the Ghule reference are persuasive. See remarks, 4 June 2026.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
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 claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,647. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below, the instant application is a broader recitation of the limitations in the ‘647 patent.
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,170,647
Instant application
A method, comprising:
Claim 1. A method, comprising;
receiving, by a network device, Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) fragments of a flow, wherein source and/or destination port information is encoded into an identification number of an IPv6 fragment header of each of the IPv6 fragments;
receiving, by a network device, Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) fragments of a flow;
(clams 3-4) wherein source (destination) port information is encoded into an identification number of an IPv6 fragment header of each of the IPv6 fragments.
extracting, by the network device, the source and/or destination port information from the IPv6 fragments;
extracting, by the network device, source and/or destination port information from the IPv6 fragments, wherein the network device does not perform IPv6 reassembly prior to extracting the source and/or destination port information;
performing, by the network device, a spoof check of the IPv6 fragments;
(claim 6) performing a check of the IPv6 fragments to generate the portion of the IPv6 fragments based on the IPv6 fragments that pass the check;
dropping, by the network device, any of the IPv6 fragments that fail the spoof check, to generate remaining IPv6 fragments;
(claim 2) dropping, by the network device, any of the IPv6 fragments that fail a spoof check to generate the portion of IPv6 fragments.
translating, by the network device, the remaining IPv6 fragments into IP version 4 (IPv4) fragments based on the source and/or destination port information; and
translating, by the network device, a portion of the IPv6 fragments into Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) fragments based on the source and/or destination port information; and
forwarding, by the network device, the IPv4 fragments toward an IPv4 cloud network.
forwarding, by the network device, the IPv4 fragments toward an IPv4 cloud network.
As shown above, claims 1-4 and 6 of the instant application are substantially the same as claim 1 of the ‘647 patent. Therefore, the instant application has a broader claim scope than the claims of the ‘647 patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghule et al. (US 11,165,701) in view of Ghule et al. (US 2019/0356591, hereafter Ghule 2).
In regard to claim 1, Ghule disclosed a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device, Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) fragments of a flow; (Ghule column 8 lines 14-15)
extracting, by the network device, source and/or destination port information from the IPv6 fragments; (Ghule column 8 lines 16-30)
translating, by the network device, a portion of the IPv6 fragments into Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) fragments based on the source and/or destination port information; and (Ghule column 8 lines 16-30)
forwarding, by the network device, the IPv4 fragments toward an IPv4 cloud network. (Ghule column 9 lines 16-22)
Ghule failed to disclose wherein the network device does not perform IPv6 reassembly prior to extracting the source and/or destination port information.
However, Ghule 2 disclosed wherein the network device does not perform IPv6 reassembly prior to extracting the source and/or destination port information. Ghule 2, [0009] – “This disclosure also describes techniques for forwarding fragments of IPv4 network packets encapsulated within IPv6 network packets to an IPv4 network and performing anti-spoofing checks of such network packets without reassembling IPv4 network packets from its fragments encapsulated within IPv6 network packets.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the steps of Ghule without reassembling the packets. In most IPv6 to IPv4 conversion scenarios, it is not necessary to perform IPv6 reassembly. Ghule 2 demonstrates this in at least Ghule 2 [0009].
In regard to claim 2, Ghule disclosed:
dropping, by the network device, any of the IPv6 fragments that fail a spoof check to generate the portion of IPv6 fragments. (Ghule column 9 lines 16-27. An anti-spoof check is equivalent to a spoof check.)
In regard to claim 3, Ghule disclosed wherein source port information is encoded into an identification number of an IPv6 fragment header of each of the IPv6 fragments. (Ghule column 9 lines 12-15)
In regard to claim 4, Ghule disclosed wherein destination port information is encoded into an identification number of an IPv6 fragment header of each of the IPv6 fragments.
In regard to claim 5, Ghule disclosed:
receiving an unfragmented IPv4 packet; (Ghule column 16 lines 4-7)
storing the unfragmented IPv4 packet in a first memory location of the network device; (Ghule column 16 lines 4-7)
storing a translated IPv6 header of the unfragmented IPv4 packet and an IPv6 fragment header in a second memory location of the network device; (Ghule column 16 lines 8-20)
fragmenting the unfragmented IPv4 packet into additional IPv4 fragments; and (Ghule column 18 lines 28-54)
storing the additional IPv4 fragments in a third memory location of the network device. (Ghule column 18 lines 28-54)
In regard to claim 6, Ghule disclosed:
performing a check of the IPv6 fragments to generate the portion of the IPv6 fragments based on the IPv6 fragments that pass the check. (Ghule column 8 lines 14-30)
In regard to claim 7, Ghule disclosed wherein translating the portion of IPv6 fragments into IPv4 fragments comprises:
translating the portion of IPv6 fragments using mapping rules based on information embedded in the portion of the IPv6 fragments. (Ghule column 8 lines 14-30)
Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
In regard to claim 10, Ghule disclosed wherein the one or more processors, to receive the IPv6 fragments, are to:
receive the IPv6 fragments from a customer premises equipment. (Ghule column 4 lines 55-56)
In regard to claim 11, Ghule disclosed wherein the one or more processors, to translate the portion of IPv6 fragments into the IPv4 fragments, are to:
translate the portion of IPv6 fragments into the IPv4 fragments based on mappings of addresses and ports using a translation standard. (Ghule column 8 lines 16-30)
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
In regard to claim 14, Ghule disclosed wherein the network device is a border relay provided between an IPv6 service provider network and the IPv4 public Internet. (Ghule column 4 line 48)
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
In regard to claim 16, Ghule disclosed wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the network device to translate the portion of the IPv6 fragments, cause the network device to:
translate the portion of the IPv6 fragments into the IPv4 fragments using mapping rules that calculate addresses and ports based on information embedded in the IPv6 fragments. (Ghule column 8 lines 16-30)
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
In regard to claim 18, Ghule disclosed wherein the one or more instructions further cause the network device to:
receive additional IPv6 fragments of an additional flow; (Ghule column 8 lines 14-30)
drop any of the additional IPv6 fragments that fail a check to generate remaining additional IPv6 fragments; (Ghule column 9 lines 16-33)
translate the remaining additional IPv6 fragments into additional IPv4 fragments; and (Ghule column 9 lines 16-33)
forward the additional IPv4 fragments toward the IPv4 cloud network. (Ghule column 9 lines 16-33)
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
In regard to claim 20, Ghule disclosed wherein the one or more instructions further cause the network device to:
maintain any of the IPv6 fragments when an IPv6 fragment, of the IPv6 fragments, passes a check, to generate the portion of IPv6 fragments. (Ghule column 9 lines 16-33)
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 Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights