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 .
Detailed Action
This office action is in response to the correspondence received on July 15, 2026. In the correspondence applicant has elected invention I (without traverse), claims 1-10, and cancelled all non-elected claims. Claims 11-13 are now cancelled. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilgen et al (US PGPub No: 2005/0114843) in view of Ambardekar et al (US PGPub No: 2019/0018710), hereafter referred to as Gilgen and Ambardekar, respectively.
With regard to claims 1 and 6, Gilgen teaches through Ambardekar, a resource leak detection method comprising: when allocating resources to a network packet, recording a resource allocation timestamp of the network packet into a tracking list (Gilgen teaches timestamping allocated resources in a resource pool; see paragraph 18, Gilgen. The pool manager appends the timestamp to the resource to indicate when the resource has been allocated; see paragraph 31, Gilgen. See Ambardekar below for tracking list);
and detecting at least one network packet suspected of resource leak according to a current timestamp and at least one resource allocation timestamp recorded in the tracking list (Gilgen explains how the timestamp is inspected, if too much time has elapsed without he resource being accessed by the calling code segment (i.e. packet), the resource will be deemed to be overly and intolerably ide; see paragraph 32, Gilgen. When the calling code segment (i.e. packet) has not returned the resource to the resource pool, it will be presumed a memory leak has arisen (i.e. detect packet being suspected of a resource leak); see paragraph 32, Gilgen. See Ambardekar below for comparing timestamp to current time).
While Gilgen teaches timestamping allocated resources and detecting leaks, Gilgen does not explicitly cite detecting based on an allocation timestamp and a current timestamp. In the same field of endeavor, Ambardekar also teaches how when a resource is allocated, an allocation marker is created to track the allocation; see paragraph 46, Ambardekar. A database table (i.e. tracking list) records the resource along with its allocation marker and allocation timestamp; see paragraph 59 and Figure 3, Ambardekar. Ambardekar teaches how an expiry interval is used, say 5 minutes. If the expiry period (5 minutes) has lapsed (current time here being 5 minutes after the allocation timestamp, i.e. current timestamp) since the allocation timestamp (allocation timestamp), the allocated resource is returned to prevent a leak; see paragraphs 46, 51, and 68, Ambardekar. By returning an allocated resource, resource leakage is protected against; see paragraph 68, Ambardekar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Ambardekar with those of Gilgen, to help prevent resource leaks.
With regard to claims 2 and 7, Gilgen teaches through Ambardekar, the resource leak detection method further comprising: when the resources occupied by the network packet are released, deleting the resource allocation timestamp of the network packet from the tracking list
Ambardekar teaches how when a resource is allocated, an allocation marker is created to track the allocation; see paragraph 46, Ambardekar. A database table (i.e. tracking list) records the resource along with its allocation marker and allocation timestamp; see paragraph 59 and Figure 3, Ambardekar. When a resource is released, its allocation marker (including the allocation timestamp) is deleted; see paragraph 57, Ambardekar. By returning/releasing an allocated resource, resource leakage is protected against; see paragraph 68, Ambardekar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Ambardekar with those of Gilgen, to help prevent resource leaks.
With regard to claims 3 and 8, Gilgen teaches through Ambardekar, the resource leak detection method wherein detecting the at least one network packet suspected of resource leak according to the current timestamp and the at least one resource allocation timestamp recorded in the tracking list comprises: comparing a difference between the current timestamp and a resource allocation timestamp recorded in the tracking list with a predetermined value; and in response to the difference being larger than the predetermined value, determining that a network packet corresponding to the resource allocation timestamp is a network packet suspected of resource leakage
While Gilgen teaches timestamping allocated resources and detecting leaks, Gilgen does not explicitly cite detecting based on an allocation timestamp and a current timestamp. In the same field of endeavor, Ambardekar also teaches how when a resource is allocated, an allocation marker is created to track the allocation; see paragraph 46, Ambardekar. A database table (i.e. tracking list) records the resource along with its allocation marker and allocation timestamp; see paragraph 59 and Figure 3, Ambardekar. Ambardekar teaches how an expiry interval is used, say 5 minutes (i.e. predetermined value). If the expiry period (5 minutes) has lapsed (current time here being 5 minutes after the allocation timestamp, i.e. current timestamp) since the allocation timestamp (allocation timestamp), the allocated resource is returned to prevent a leak; see paragraphs 46, 51, and 68, Ambardekar. Returning a resource after expiry is a difference being larger than the predetermined value (i.e. 5 minutes in this scenario). By returning an allocated resource, resource leakage is protected against; see paragraph 68, Ambardekar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the teachings of Ambardekar with those of Gilgen, to help prevent resource leaks.
With regard to claims 5 and 10, Gilgen teaches through Ambardekar, the resource leak detection method further comprising: after detecting a network packet suspected of resource leakage, simulating packet forwarding of the network packet suspected of resource leakage to reproduce a resource leakage problem (Gilgen teaches suspected resource leaks; see 21 and 33, Gilgen. When a leak is detected, the offending code (packet) can come under study and the process can be repeated; see paragraph 36, Gilgen).
The obviousness motivation applied to independent claims 1 and 6 are applicable to their respective dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AZIZUL Q CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-3909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 (571) 272-3865. 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.
/AZIZUL CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights