CTNF 19/041,516 CTNF 80070 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 1. This is in response to communication filed on 1/30/25 in which claims 1-20 are pending. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 2. 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255831 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite the same method of establishing a traffic flow migration . U.S. Patent No. 12,255831 U.S. Application No. 19/041516 1. A method comprising: establishing a traffic flow, of a multipath flow, on a first path between an endpoint device and a first termination point running a first instance of a workload; determining, by a controller of a network, that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path to a second path of the multipath flow such that the traffic flow terminates at a second termination point that is different than the first termination point running the first instance of the workload; and subsequent to determining that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path and to the second path of the multipath flow, causing, by the controller, a migration of a state of the first instance of the workload to a location associated with the second termination point as a second instance of the workload running on the second termination point . 1. A method comprising: establishing a traffic flow, of a multipath flow, on a first path between an endpoint device and termination point running a workload; determining a workload state associated with the traffic flow on the first path ; determining, by a controller of a network, that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path to a second path of the multipath flow between the endpoint device and the termination point running the workload; and subsequent to determining that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path and to the second path of the multipath flow, instantiating, by the controller, the workload state for the traffic flow that has migrated from the first path and on the second path. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art remove the limitation “, a migration of a state of the first instance of the workload to a location associated with the second termination point as a second instance of the workload running on the second termination point ” from the present claimed language of this application in order to broaden the claimed language . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA 4. Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10, 110684 to Haltore et al . a. As per claim 1, Haltore et al teaches a method comprising: establishing a traffic flow, of a multipath flow, on a first path between an endpoint device and a termination point running a workload (See col. 2, lines 65-67, migrate an existing flow that is currently serviced by the first device to be serviced by the second device ); determining a workload state associated with the traffic flow on the first path (See paragraph [0022-0023]); determining, by a controller of a network, that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path to a second path of the multipath flow between the endpoint device and the termination point running the workload (See paragraph [0044], manager system 110 can perform functions to migrate traffic being directed to container 142 from a certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z so that the traffic from the certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z is instead directed to utility container 242A ); and subsequent to determining that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path and to the second path of the multipath flow, instantiating, by the controller, the workload state for the traffic flow that has migrated from the first path and on the second path (See paragraph [0064, 0067, 0093]). b. As per claim 10, Haltore et al teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: establishing a traffic flow, of a multipath flow, on a first path between an endpoint device and a termination point running a workload (See col. 2, lines 65-67, migrate an existing flow that is currently serviced by the first device to be serviced by the second device ); determining a workload state associated with the traffic flow on the first path; determining, by a controller of a network, that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path to a second path of the multipath flow between the endpoint device and the termination point running the workload (See paragraph [0044], manager system 110 can perform functions to migrate traffic being directed to container 142 from a certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z so that the traffic from the certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z is instead directed to utility container 242A ); and subsequent to determining that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path and to the second path of the multipath flow, instantiating, by the controller, the workload state for the traffic flow that has migrated from the first path and on the second path (See paragraph [0064, 0067, 0093]). c. As per claim 18, Haltore et al teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: establishing a traffic flow, of a multipath flow, on a first path between an endpoint device and a termination point running a workload (See col. 2, lines 65-67, migrate an existing flow that is currently serviced by the first device to be serviced by the second device ); determining a workload state associated with the traffic flow on the first path (See paragraph [0022-0023]); determining, by a controller of a network, that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path to a second path of the multipath flow between the endpoint device and the termination point running the workload (See paragraph [0044], manager system 110 can perform functions to migrate traffic being directed to container 142 from a certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z so that the traffic from the certain set of one or more client of clients 120A-120Z is instead directed to utility container 242A ); and subsequent to determining that the traffic flow has migrated from the first path and to the second path of the multipath flow, instantiating, by the controller, the workload state for the traffic flow that has migrated from the first path and on the second path (See paragraph [0064, 0067, 0093]). e. As per claims 2 and 11, Halore et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Halore et al teaches wherein instantiating the workload state for the traffic flow further comprises causing, by the controller, a migration of the workload state from the first path to the second path of the multipath flow (See col. 7, lines 63-67). f. As per claims 4 and 13, Halore et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Halore et al teaches wherein the workload state is specific to the endpoint device (See col. 8, lines 59-67 and col. 9, lines 1-11). g. As per claims 5 and 14, Halore et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Halore et al teaches wherein the workload is associated with an application that is being accessed by the endpoint device (See col. 7, lines 46-62). h. As per claims 6 and 15, Halore et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Halore et al teaches a migration of a security function from the first path to the second path of the multipath flow, the security function previously servicing the traffic flow prior to the traffic flow being migrated to the second path of the multipath flow (See col. 7, lines 46-62) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 3, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,110684 to Haltore et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0167117 to Kekeh et al . a. As per claims 3, 12 and 19, Halore et teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Halore et al fails to teach causing a hibernation of the workload and the workload state; and migrating, to the second path as a hibernated workload, the traffic flow and the workload state, wherein instantiating the workload state for the traffic flow further comprises restoring the workload and the workload state based at least in part on the hibernated workload. Kekeh et al teaches causing a hibernation of the workload and the workload state; and migrating, to the second path as a hibernated workload, the traffic flow and the workload state, wherein instantiating the workload state for the traffic flow further comprises restoring the workload and the workload state based at least in part on the hibernated workload (See paragraph [0054-0057]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Kekeh et al in the claimed invention of Halore et al in order to store and resume application runtime state (See paragraph [0018]) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 7. Claim s 7-8, 16 and 20 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 07-96 AIA 8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Publication No. 2012/0167117 to Kekeh et al teaches Storing and Resuming Application Runtime State. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0059209 to Alnoor teaches State Maintenance as a Service. 9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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. /DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 2 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 3 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 4 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 5 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 6 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 7 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 8 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 9 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 10 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 11 Art Unit: 2444 Application/Control Number: 19/041,516 Page 12 Art Unit: 2444
Prosecution Insights