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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 2/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-10, 14 and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “sending a first message, wherein the first message comprises a target network address field, an address type field, and a target system identifier field, the target network address field indicates a first network address, the address type field indicates a first address type corresponding to the first network address, the first address type is one of a plurality of address types, and the target system identifier field indicates identification information of a node for which the first network address is configured;”. The claims include multiple sequential limitations separated only by commas. The punctuation causes the boundaries between structural elements and functional statement to be confusing, rendering the claim difficult to read and interpret. It is suggested to revise the clause, such as breaking the limitations into separate sub-clauses, adding conjunctions, or restructuring the phrase, to improve clarity and readability. For example, the claim can be recited as “sending a first message, the first message comprising: a target network address field that indicates a first network address; an address type field that indicates a first address type corresponding to the first network address, the first address type is one of a plurality of address types; and a target system identifier field that indicates identification information of a node for which the first network address is configured;”.
Claim 1 further recites “a second node” in line 9. The claim is objected because the “second node” is recited without previously introduce any “first node”. The use of ordinal terminology (“first”, “second”) implies a defined relationship between nodes, but only the “second node” is recited. It is suggested to amend the claim to introduce a “first node” or otherwise revise the terminology to clarify the relationship between nodes.
Claims 10 and 19 are also objected for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200213269 (Nayak et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Nayak teaches an address conflict detection ([¶ 0004], describes techniques for detecting conflicts between selected IP addresses in computer networks) method, wherein the method comprises: sending a first message, wherein the first message comprises a target network address field, an address type field, and a target system identifier field, the target network address field indicates a first network address, the address type field indicates a first address type corresponding to the first network address, the first address type is one of a plurality of address types, and the target system identifier field indicates identification information of a node for which the first network address is configured ([Fig. 1, ¶ 0045], issues Duplicate Media Access Control Address Detection (DMAD) request message 32 [i.e., first message] to determine if a global IP address is already in use…an IP address assignment module (IAAM) 26 generates a request message specifying NIC IP address 20. IAAM 26 also includes a target IP address [implicitly, target network address field]. The target IP address may be a IP address that IAAM 26 plans to reserve for assigning. [¶¶ 0067-0074] FIG. 2 is a conceptual diagram illustrating an example request message format. The request massage comprises Protocol type field 54 [i.e., address type field] may have a size 2 octets and a value of 0x0800, per RFC 5342 [Note: Per the RFC 5342, the value 0x0800 represents the Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), therefore, the Protocol type field indicates the address type is IPv4] and Hardware address field 62 [i.e., target system identifier field] has a size of 6 octets and specifies a hardware address (e.g., a MAC address)); and
receiving a second message from a second node, wherein the second message indicates whether an address conflict exists in the first network address ([¶¶ 0036-0037] In response, remote network devices 16 return DMAD response messages (such as DMAD response message 34) to local network device 12 including IP addresses of the respective remote network devices 16 in sender IP address fields of the DMAD response messages. …If local network device 12 receives any DMAD response messages, where the packet's “sender IP address” is the address being probed for, then local network device 12 treats this address as being in use by some other host, and should indicate that the proposed address is not acceptable [i.e., conflict exists]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of address types comprise at least two of the following: a SparkLink network address, a custom address, an internet protocol version 4 (IPv4) address, or an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) address ([¶ 0067], Protocol type field 54 [i.e., address type field] may have a size 2 octets and a value of 0x0800, per RFC 5342 [Note: Per the RFC 5342, the value 0x0800 represents the Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4), therefore, the Protocol type field indicates the address type is IPv4]).
Regarding Claim 3, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein when the first message is a request message, the target system identifier field is a default value or a fixed value ([¶ 0035], set the sender IP address field and target hardware address field to values of zero).
Regarding Claim 4, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the second message comprises the target network address field, the address type field, and the target system identifier field, the target network address field indicates the first network address, the address type field indicates the first address type corresponding to the first network address, the first address type is one of the plurality of address types, and the target system identifier field indicates the identification information of the node for which the first network address is configured ([¶¶ 0090-0102] FIG. 4 is a conceptual diagram illustrating an example DMAD response message [i.e., second message] format 100. The response message includes Reserved hardware address field 112 [i.e., target network address field] has a value that specifies a hardware address that a host has already reserved. Upon receiving a DMAD request message, such as DMAD request message 32, specifying a hardware address that is already in use, one of remote network devices 16 may send a DMAD response message to inform other hosts that such hardware address is not available for use. Protocol type field 104 [i.e., address type field] has a value of 0x0800, per RFC 5342 [i.e., IPv4]. … Device identifier field 124 [i.e., target system identifier field] may specify a string, such as “RACK_01_BLADE_12).
Regarding Claim 5, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein when the second message is a response message, the target system identifier field is identification information of the second node ([Fig. 4, ¶ 0090], One of network devices 16 [i.e., second node] may send a DMAD response message, such as DMAD response message 34 of FIG. 1, conforming to DMAD response message format 100, …Device identifier field 124 has a size of 4 octets. The device identifier may specify a string, such as “RACK_01_BLADE_12.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first message or the second message further comprises at least one of the following: a network address length field, a source network address field, a source system identifier field, or a reserved field ([Fig. 2, ¶¶ 0068-0069] Hardware address length field 56. Protocol address length field 58. [Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0093-0094] Hardware address length field 106. Protocol address length field 108…Reserved IP address field 114).
Regarding Claim 8, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first message is sent by a first node, and when a second network address is configured for the first node, a source network address field in the second message comprises the second network address, wherein the second network address is different from the first network address ([Fig. 1, ¶ 0035-036], local network device 12 [i.e., first node] issues DMAD request message 32. [¶ 0020], a network device may transmit a message that specifies a source IP address, [i.e., a second network address is configured for the first node] …remote network devices 16 return DMAD response messages to local network device 12. …remote network device 16N sets the value of the sender IP address field of DMAD response message 34 equal to the IP address of remote network device 16N.)
Regarding Claim 9, Nayak teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first message is sent by a first node, and when no network address other than the first network address is configured for the first node, a source network address field in the second message is a default value or a fixed value ([¶¶ 0035-0036], local network device 12 issues DMAD request message 32 to determine if a global IP address is already in use by broadcast DMAD request message 32 for the desired global IP address to remote network devices 16. …remote network devices 16 return DMAD response messages to local network device 12. …remote network device 16N sets the value of the sender IP address field of DMAD response message 34 equal to the IP address of remote network device 16N. Remote network devices 16 also set the target hardware address field and the target IP address field to values of zero).
Regarding Claims 10-15 and 17-18, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claims 1-6 and 8-9, therefore, Claims 10-15 and 17-18 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-6 and 8-9.
Regarding Claim 19, Nayak teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, wherein the programming instructions, when executed, cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising: (¶¶ 0140-0142).
The rest of the limitations of claim 19 are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 2, therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
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 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak in view of US 20230015347 (Song et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Nayak does not explicitly teach, however, Song teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein at least one of a length of the target network address field and a length of the source network address field is variable ([0028] a third field including a variable length source address field; and a fourth field include a variable length destination address field. [Fig. 4, 0056], the IPvn header 412 includes the additional fields source address length (SAL) and destination address length (DAL), and the source address (SA) and destination address (DA) are variable in length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Song’s variable-length addressing mechanism with Nayak, because such incorporation would allow the system of Nayak to transport packets among heterogeneous network while avoiding the inefficiencies associated with fixed-length address field.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 7, therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9206. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, ARIO ETIENNE can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/MOHAMMAD YOUSUF A. MIAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights