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 Status
New claims 25-28 have been added. Claims 1-28 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kikkawa teaches a system, comprising:
one or more processors configured to: (Fig. 1-5)
associate a sequence number with each IP address allocation; ([0005]: the IP address assigned to the subscriber changes dynamically. Fig. 2 and [0036]: the counter router refers to the subscriber information, and specifies the corresponding line information, with the destination IP address of the received packet as the subscriber IP address. Then, the counter router increments the sequence number corresponding to the specified line information. Note that the counter router stores the sequence number and line information in association with each other as sequence information. In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router specifies that NAS-PORT information in between the destination terminal of the received packet and the counter router is “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and increments the sequence number from “10” to “11.”)
obtain a routing metric associated with a particular IP address, wherein the routing metric is determined based at least in part on the sequence number; and (Fig. 2 and [0037]: the counter router 20 assigns the sequence number before increment to the packet together with timestamp and line information, and transfers the packet to the subscriber accommodation router 10 (step S22). In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router 20, as INT information, assigns a timestamp “09:00:00:00”, line information “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and a sequence number “10” to the header of the packet.)
determine a routing for traffic for the particular IP address based at least in part on the routing metric; and (Fig. 2 and [0039]: the subscriber accommodation router 10 deletes INT information from the packet that has been transferred and transfers the packet to the terminal 40 (step S24). In addition, the subscriber accommodation router 10 stores the INT information that has been assigned to the packet in the aggregation server 30 (step S25).)
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to provide the one or more processors with instructions. (Fig. 1-5)
Regarding claim 6, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa teaches wherein the sequence number associated with each IP address allocation is derived based on using a monotonically increasing number. ([0036]: In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router specifies that NAS-PORT information in between the destination terminal of the received packet and the counter router is “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and increments the sequence number from “10” to “11.”)
Regarding claim 17, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa teaches wherein the traffic for the particular IP address is routed without a plurality of gateways communicating with each other in connection with determining a particular gateway to be used to route the traffic. (Fig. 2 and [0037]: the counter router 20 assigns the sequence number before increment to the packet together with timestamp and line information, and transfers the packet to the subscriber accommodation router 10 (step S22). In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router 20, as INT information, assigns a timestamp “09:00:00:00”, line information “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and a sequence number “10” to the header of the packet.)
Regarding claim 18, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa teaches wherein the traffic for the particular IP address is routed without a plurality of gateways communicating with each other to determine a most recent or most preferred routing path. (Fig. 2 and [0037]: the counter router 20 assigns the sequence number before increment to the packet together with timestamp and line information, and transfers the packet to the subscriber accommodation router 10 (step S22). In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router 20, as INT information, assigns a timestamp “09:00:00:00”, line information “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and a sequence number “10” to the header of the packet.)
Regarding claim 19, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa teaches wherein a client maintains a same IP address across a plurality of connections via a plurality of gateways. (Fig. 1-2: IP address of terminal 40 is the same across different routers (e.g., gateways).)
Same rationales apply to claim 23 (method) and claim 24 (CRM) because they are substantially similar to claim 1 (system).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Rodwin (US 5812819 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa teaches wherein in connection with an allocation of the IP address to the user, a corresponding sequence number is obtained and associated with the allocation. ([0005]: the IP address assigned to the subscriber changes dynamically. Fig. 2 and [0036]: the counter router refers to the subscriber information, and specifies the corresponding line information, with the destination IP address of the received packet as the subscriber IP address. Then, the counter router increments the sequence number corresponding to the specified line information. Note that the counter router stores the sequence number and line information in association with each other as sequence information. In the example of FIG. 2, the counter router specifies that NAS-PORT information in between the destination terminal of the received packet and the counter router is “10.10.10.10/1/2/1” and increments the sequence number from “10” to “11.”)
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose allocate the particular IP address to a user.
However, Rodwin teaches allocate the particular IP address to a user. (Abstract: The IP address uniquely identifies the remote computer on the network, and it is needed by the remote computer to communicate on the network. If the user at the remote computer disconnects, or is disconnected, from the network and then subsequently attempts to re-gain access to the network by sending the same username to either the same or a different remote access device coupled to the network, that remote access device obtains the same IP address from the server.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable that each remote computer, regardless of the remote access device to which it has dialed-in to gain access to the network, be uniquely and deterministically identifiable by the dynamic IP address assignment/management server(s) because then each remote computer can be assigned the same IP address even if the user disconnects from the network and then later reconnects, via the same or a different remote access device, before the dynamically-assigned, server-supplied IP address lease expires. If IP address continuity is maintained for dial-in remote computers in this way, the remote users can seamlessly access and re-access the network and utilize its services and resources without the involvement of the network manager. As taught by Rodwin, Background.
Regarding claim 5, Kikkawa and Rodwin teach the system of claim 2.
Rodwin teaches wherein the user comprises a client terminal. (Fig. 1A User 18 and Remote Computer 12.)
Regarding claim 20, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the particular IP address is allocated to one or more gateways that mediate access to an enterprise network.
However, Rodwin teaches wherein the particular IP address is allocated to one or more gateways that mediate access to an enterprise network. (Fig. 1B: servers 301-303. Abstract: The remote access device then obtains an internet protocol (IP) address from a server on the network, which server dynamically assigns the IP address based on the username. Field of the Invention: a dynamic internet protocol (IP) address assignment server to provide the user with the same IP address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable that each remote computer, regardless of the remote access device to which it has dialed-in to gain access to the network, be uniquely and deterministically identifiable by the dynamic IP address assignment/management server(s) because then each remote computer can be assigned the same IP address even if the user disconnects from the network and then later reconnects, via the same or a different remote access device, before the dynamically-assigned, server-supplied IP address lease expires. If IP address continuity is maintained for dial-in remote computers in this way, the remote users can seamlessly access and re-access the network and utilize its services and resources without the involvement of the network manager. As taught by Rodwin, Background.
Regarding claim 21, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the particular IP address is dynamically allocated to a user based on an IP address allocation mechanism.
However, Rodwin teaches wherein the particular IP address is dynamically allocated to a user based on an IP address allocation mechanism. (Fig. 1B. Abstract: The remote access device then obtains an internet protocol (IP) address from a server on the network, which server dynamically assigns the IP address based on the username. a dynamic internet protocol (IP) address assignment/management server such as a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable that each remote computer, regardless of the remote access device to which it has dialed-in to gain access to the network, be uniquely and deterministically identifiable by the dynamic IP address assignment/management server(s) because then each remote computer can be assigned the same IP address even if the user disconnects from the network and then later reconnects, via the same or a different remote access device, before the dynamically-assigned, server-supplied IP address lease expires. If IP address continuity is maintained for dial-in remote computers in this way, the remote users can seamlessly access and re-access the network and utilize its services and resources without the involvement of the network manager. As taught by Rodwin, Background.
Regarding claim 22, Kikkawa and Rodwin teach the system of claim 21.
Rodwin teaches wherein the IP address allocation mechanism is a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). (Fig. 1B. Abstract: The remote access device then obtains an internet protocol (IP) address from a server on the network, which server dynamically assigns the IP address based on the username. a dynamic internet protocol (IP) address assignment/management server such as a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) server.)
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Garcia-Luna-Aceves (US 20020013856 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing metric is obtained by converting the sequence number to a number according to which a value for a more recently associated sequence number is lower than a previously associated sequence number.
However, Garcia-Luna-Aceves teaches wherein the routing metric is obtained by converting the sequence number to a number according to which a value for a more recently associated sequence number is lower than a previously associated sequence number. ([0077]: A router then computes its preferred paths to destinations based on the updated information by running a shortest-path algorithm. [0114]: The simplest link metric is to give each link a cost of “1”, which will cause the routing algorithm to choose paths that take the shortest number of links (or “hops”).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because most network routing protocols operate on “metrics” to determine the best path or paths for data traffic to take between source and destination nodes. These metrics are most often “link-state” metrics, which give an indication of the desirability (or inversely, the “cost”) of routing traffic over a particular link. The simplest link metric is to give each link a cost of “1”, which will cause the routing algorithm to choose paths that take the shortest number of links (or “hops”). As taught by Garcia-Luna-Aceves, [0114].
Regarding claim 10, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the routing for traffic for the particular IP address comprises routing the traffic through a gateway for an IP address allocation having an associated routing metric with a lowest value among all routing metrics associated with the particular IP address.
However, Garcia-Luna-Aceves teaches wherein determining the routing for traffic for the particular IP address comprises routing the traffic through a gateway for an IP address allocation having an associated routing metric with a lowest value among all routing metrics associated with the particular IP address. ([0077]: A router then computes its preferred paths to destinations based on the updated information by running a shortest-path algorithm. [0020]: The single entry in the routing table may further include path information (e.g., distance and/or predecessor information) regarding the destination node. Such distance information may be based on link-state information and/or node-state information of a path within the computer network. In some cases, the path is a shortest path between the destination and a node that maintains the routing table.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable performing routing at the network level facilitates aggregation of routing updates, and permits data packets to be sent over the shortest paths using the available links efficiently. As taught by Garcia-Luna-Aceves, [0005].
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Stackoverflow (What does unit32_max mean).
Regarding claim 8, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing metric is obtained by computing a uint32_max representation of the sequence number.
However, Stackoverflow teaches wherein the routing metric is obtained by computing a uint32_max representation of the sequence number. (Page 2: It is the maximum number that can be stored in an unsigned 32-bit integer i.e. 0xffffffff.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because unit32_max is the maximum number that can be stored in an unsigned 32-bit integer which is commonly used in programming. As taught by Stackoverflow, Page 2.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Fulknier (US 20070110017 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing metric is associated with an allocation of the particular IP address to a particular user.
However, Fulknier teaches wherein the routing metric is associated with an allocation of the particular IP address to a particular user. ([0011]: the router CPU (222) communicates with each locally reachable client device assigns it a local IP address and then builds a routing table for associating each local IP address with each locally reachable client device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because the invention solves the problems of the prior art by providing methods for operating a network router (300) supporting a plurality of locally reachable devices. Specifically, the router CPU (222) communicates with each locally reachable client device assigns it a local IP address and then builds a routing table for associating each local IP address with each locally reachable client device. As taught by Fulknier, [0011].
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Perrett (US 20170346727 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the routing metric is used as a multi-exit discriminator (MED) in connection with redistributing a host route into a border gateway protocol (BGP).
However, Perrett teaches wherein the routing metric is used as a multi-exit discriminator (MED) in connection with redistributing a host route into a border gateway protocol (BGP). ([0068]: The routes for each prefix are prioritized using the same best path algorithm used by the BGP router to determine or identify the best route for a prefix. [0069]-[0070]: rules used by routers to determine the best route: (6) preferring the route with the lowest multi-exit discriminator (Med); (10) preferring the route that comes from the BGP router with the lowest router ID.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that popular routers, such as Cisco routers use the following rules to determine the best route: (6) preferring the route with the lowest multi-exit discriminator (Med); (10) preferring the route that comes from the BGP router with the lowest router ID;, etc. As taught by Perrett, [0069].
Regarding claim 12, Kikkawa and Perrett teach the system of claim 11.
Perrett teaches wherein a newer host route has a lower MED value based on a determination of routing metrics for IP allocations. ([0069]-[0070]: rules used by routers to determine the best route: (6) preferring the route with the lowest multi-exit discriminator (Med).)
Regarding claim 13, Kikkawa and Perrett teach the system of claim 11.
Perrett teaches wherein a newer host route has a higher local preference value. ([0069]-[0070]: rules used by routers to determine the best route: (2) preferring the route with the highest local preference; (6) preferring the route with the lowest multi-exit discriminator (Med).)
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikkawa (US 20210006488 A1) in view of Mens (DHCP Lease Time – What is it and How does it work?).
Regarding claim 14, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein a lease time associated with IP allocations for the particular IP address is greater than one minute.
However, Mens teaches wherein a lease time associated with IP allocations for the particular IP address is greater than one minute. (Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time: a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address. As taught by Mens, Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time.
Regarding claim 15, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein a lease time associated with each IP allocation for the particular IP address is greater than ninety seconds.
However, Mens teaches wherein a lease time associated with each IP allocation for the particular IP address is greater than ninety seconds. (Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time: a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address. As taught by Mens, Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time.
Regarding claim 16, Kikkawa teaches the system of claim 1.
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose wherein a lease time associated with each IP allocation for the particular IP address is greater than thirty minutes.
However, Mens teaches wherein a lease time associated with each IP allocation for the particular IP address is greater than thirty minutes. (Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time: a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include above limitation into Kikkawa. One would have been motivated to do so because it is well-known in the art that a smaller lease of 24 hours is pretty common. This way regular devices will keep mostly the same IP Address. As taught by Mens, Pages 3-4 Recommend DHCP Lease Time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 25 and 26 correspond to claim 3 rewritten in independent form.
Claims 3-4 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in claim 3. Claim 4 is a dependent claim of claim 3. The prior art of record fail to explicitly disclose each and every limitation recited in claims 27 and 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 and 5-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, applicant submits that Kikkawa fails to teach claim 1, especially fail to disclose “associating a sequence number with each IP address allocation”. Furthermore, Kikkawa does not disclose “obtaining a routing metric determined based at least in part on the sequence number, or determining routing for traffic based on such a metric.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Kikkawa teaches in [0005] and [0036] that an IP address is assigned to a subscriber, a counter router stores the subscriber information with the corresponding line information, the IP address and a sequence number. The counter router uses the stored information to rout the packets to corresponding subscriber. Therefore, Kikkawa teaches claim 1.
On page 7, applicant submits that Kikkawa fails to teach claim 6.
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Kikkawa teaches in [0036] increments the sequence number from “10” to “11.”
On page 7, applicant submits that Garcia-Luna-Aceves fails to teach claims 7 and 10.
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Garcia-Luna-Aceves teaches in [0077] A router then computes its preferred paths to destinations based on the updated information by running a shortest-path algorithm, and in [0114] the link metric is to give each link a cost of “1”, which will cause the routing algorithm to choose paths that take the shortest number of links (or “hops”).
On page 8, applicant submits that the combination of Kikkawa and Stackoverflow fails to teach claim 8.
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Kikkawa teaches the routing metric is obtained by the sequence number. Stackoverflow teaches a generic concept how uint32_max is used in math/computer programming. It is obvious that the generic concept can be used to compute a uint32_max representation of the sequence number.
On page 8, applicant submits that the combination of Kikkawa and Fulknier fails to teach claim 9.
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Fulknier teaches in [0011] the router communicates with each locally reachable client device assigns it a local IP address and then builds a routing table for associating each local IP address with each locally reachable client device. It is equivalent to routing table/metric is associated with an allocation of the particular IP address to a particular user.
On page 8, applicant submits that the combination of Kikkawa and Perrett fails to teach claims 11-13.
In response to applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Perrett teaches in [0068]-[0070] that The routes for each prefix are prioritized using the same best path algorithm used by the BGP router to determine or identify the best route for a prefix, and rules used by routers to determine the best route: (6) preferring the route with the lowest multi-exit discriminator (Med); (10) preferring the route that comes from the BGP router with the lowest router ID. The cited paragraphs teach claims 11-13.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZI YE whose telephone number is (571)270-1039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 Moise can be reached at 5712723865. 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.
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights