DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 6/9/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the newly amended subject matter. However, as provided below, the combination of HuaweiSP and Gundavelli teaches the amended subject matter.
With regard to “actively sent,” as amended into claim 1 and argued by Applicant, lacking any detail of what constitutes “actively,” it would appear that any network communication would be “actively sent,” as specific steps would be required to send such a message (e.g. packetizing). Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments cannot be deemed persuasive, as there is no evidence “actively sent” would be sent without a request (it is noted that cited paragraph [0103] even provides additional language not presented in claim 1 (and different than new claim 21) to add detail (i.e. “without requiring the first device to request the application-aware networking identifier from the second device”).
With regard to the newly added claims 21-24, these claims stand rejected for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13, 15-19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “APN6: Application-aware IPv6 Networking,” published July 3, 2020 (as submitted by Applicant on 12/19/2024) (HuaweiSP) in view of US 2022/0200948 (Gundavelli).
With regard to claim 1, HuaweiSP discloses a network device, comprising:
one or more memories configured to store instructions; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions (HuaweiSP: Pages 2-3. The functions of the different components are performed by computer devices.), wherein execution of the instructions causes the network device to:
send a first packet, wherein the first packet carries the first application-aware networking identifier, and the first application-aware networking identifier indicates application information to which the first packet belongs (HuaweiSP: Pages 4-5. In APN6, application information is carried in the packet. It is noted that this appears to be the type of disclosure that Applicant is attempting to improve upon with the disclosed invention (Specification: Paragraph [0004]).).
HuaweiSP fails to disclose, but Gundavelli teaches
receive a first message actively sent by a second device (Note that the term “actively” would only require that the message is sent in some active manner, as opposed to a passively sent message. It is unclear what would constitute a passively sent message, but it is apparent that the message is being sent on purpose and using specific actions, and thus would be actively sent.), wherein the first message comprises a first application-aware networking identifier, the second device is configured to manage an application-aware networking identifier resource, and the first application-aware networking identifier is an application-aware networking identifier in an application-aware networking identifier resource (Gundavelli: Abstract, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0055] to [0056] and Figure 8. Gundavelli presents a system where a DNS query (first message) is sent by a user device (first device), which results in the DNS server (second device) sending a response which is received by the first device (receive a first message…). The DNS response includes an application ID associated with the application. This application ID allows for the creation and utilization of a QoS flow for the traffic of the application according to a selected QoS policy, making the network an application-aware network.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an application identifier from a DNS server, such as in Gundavelli, for the system of HuaweiSP to efficiently provide such identifiers and ensure that the proper QoS treatment is applied.
With regard to claim 3, HuaweiSP in view o fGundavelli teaches wherein the application information to which the first packet belongs reflects a first application to which the first packet belongs, and the first application-aware networking identifier is an Application-aware Networking identifier APN ID corresponding to the first application (HuaweiSP: Pages 4-5 and Gundavelli: Abstract, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0055] to [0056] and Figure 8).
With regard to claim 4, HuaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches that the first network device is an application device, the first application is installed on the application device, and the second device is a domain name system (DNS) server (Gundavelli: Abstract, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0055] to [0056] and Figure 8).
With regard to claim 5, HuaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches wherein the first message further comprises a first internet protocol IP address, wherein the first IP address matches a first domain name, the first packet is used to access the first domain name, and a destination address of the first packet is the first IP address (HuaweiSP: Page 7 and Gundavelli: Abstract, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0055] to [0056] and Figure 8. A DNS response would be to the address that sent the DNS query, thus having a matching address, where such are to guarantee SLA.). HuaweiSP fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches the first application-aware networking identifier matches the first domain name (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that having SLA policies based on domain was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, where such would have any information associated with the SLA policy provided to identify the application in HuaweiSP and Gundavelli would have such information being specific to the domain.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the app aware ID match the first domain name to provide meaningful information for any policies of the domain, such that one domain would not have to adhere to conventions (such as application identifiers) of another domain.
With regard to claim 6, HuaweiSP fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the first message further comprises a key; and wherein the execution of the instructions further causes the network device to: verify, based on the key, whether the first application-aware networking identifier is tampered with (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the use of keys for securing network communications was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, where one form of keys would ensure that the packet matches expectations, such as length (e.g. checksum) or data (e.g. hash).). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a key to verify the message has not been tampered with to secure such communications, such that a third party would not be able to hijack a session (or, in less malicious terms, ensure that the packet is correctly received and not altered due to network issues).).
With regard to claim 7, HuaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches wherein the first application-aware networking identifier comprises at least one of the following information: an application group identifier APP GROUP ID, a user group identifier USER GROUP ID, a flow identifier FLOW ID, or a service level agreement SLA (HuaweiSP: Pages 4-5. As a note, lacking detail of what constitutes these different options, the ID would identify a flow (as the ID would be used for matching the traffic to a flow), a SLA identifier (the SLA information would be conveyed), and would identify an application group (traffic would be grouped according to the application.), where only one options from the list of options is required to teach the instant claim, as a whole.)
With regard to claims 8-19, the instant claims are similar to claim 1 and 3-7, and are rejected for similar reasons (claim 1 is directed to the first device, claim 8 is directed to the second device, claim 13 is directed to a system with both devices, where the claims are recited in such a way that the exchange between the devices substantially requires the details of the each device.).
With regard to claim 21, HuwaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches that the execution of the instructions causes the network device to receive the first message without sending a requiring message to the second device (Gundavelli: Abstract, Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0055] to [0056] and Figure 8. Lacking detail of what causes the message to be received or a recitation that no requests were previously sent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim would have the receiving step, itself, performed without also sending, where receiving, in itself, is typically performed without simultaneously sending a “requiring message.” Further, the term “requiring message” does not provide any specific detail of what such a message is requiring. For example, the requiring message would be a message that has to be sent responsive to the received message or it could have nothing to do with the received message, as it is not explicitly linked to the received message. It is further noted that in networking, messages are typically never sent to an initially connected device without that device sending some message out to the network, even if it is to announce its presence, as the components of the network would have no awareness that a device that never sent any messages of any sort was connected. Thus, additional detail would be required, where it is recommended that the claim be amended to clearly reflect the determination that the device is a dedicated to a singular application, responsive to this determination, the message is received based on this determination without having previously sent a second message that the first message is in response to.).
With regard to claim 22, HuaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches the network device includes a dedicated device (Gundavelli: Paragraph [0031]. Lacking detail of what constitutes a dedicated device, or how it is dedicated (e.g. dedicated to a user, dedicated to provide a single function, etc.), the different listed devices would be considered to be dedicated.).
With regard to claim 23, HuaweiSP fails to teach, but Gundavelli teaches wherein the dedicated device includes a video conference terminal (Gundavelli: Paragraph [0045]. Multimedia (video) conferencing is a type of service that may be included in a terminal.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the dedicated device include a video conference terminal to enable a user to participate in such video conferences, thus allowing the device to be used for a very common function.
With regard to claim 24, HuaweiSP in view of Gundavelli teaches the first application-aware networking identifier comprises a service level agreement (SLA) level, an application identifier (APP ID), a user ID, and a flow ID (HuaweiSP: Page 9. The ID is shown to include SLA level, APP ID, User ID, and Flow ID.).
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 SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights