DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (19/053,714) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 19/053,714, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Preliminary Amendment and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received February 14, 2025.
Claims 2–21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS filed August 18, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDS has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) recites “These [numbering of sheets of drawings], if present, must be placed in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin. . . . The drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(t) for failing to include the numbering of sheets of drawings (1) in the middle of the top of the sheet, but not in the margin and (2) larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion.
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(g) recites “Each sheet must include a top margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 1.5 cm. (5/8 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 1.0 cm. (3/8 inch).” See MPEP § 608.02.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(g) for including elements within the left side of at least 2.5 cm. (1 inch).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The following is a quotation of 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1):
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
The Specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the term “reverse framing” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 17. See MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 11 recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a device, perform a method comprising” (A) “generating. . . a framed message based on the received message,” and (B) “upon receiving a response message, performing reverse framing of the response message.”
Figure 7 illustrates proxy server device item 703 that generates a framed message item 715 based on a received message item 713. See Spec. ¶ 76. Moreover, Figure 7 illustrates network device item 707 that performs framing of a response message item 721 upon receiving the response message. See id. ¶ 77.
Thus, the Specification discloses multiple devices performing steps (A) and (B) recited in claim 11, and not “a device” as recited in claim 11. Therefore, the claims contain limitations which were not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 by analogy (with respect to “a processor” performing steps (A) and (B) when the Specification describes multiple devices).
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
Claims 2–21 are rejected under § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
“While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning,” in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term “so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term.” Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also MPEP §§ 2111.01, 2173.05(e) (citing Process Control). “To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.” MPEP § 2111.01 (citing Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
Claim 2, line 8 introduces the term “reverse framing.” The term “reverse framing” has no ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. The Specification discloses “reverse” once at paragraph 77 that recites “For instance, the network device 707 may receive a response message 721 and reverse the procedure by framing the packets to produce a framed message 723 that is sent to the management server device 705.”
Based on paragraph 77 of the Specification, the Examiner is uncertain as to whether the term “reverse framing” is (A) a type of framing that is in reverse to the framing to produce the framed message; (B) framing the response message (which thereby reverses the procedure illustrated in Figure 7 and discussed in paragraph 77 of the Specification); or (C) something else. See MPEP 2173.05(b) (citing Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential).
It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation refers to (B). See MPEP § 2173.06 (reciting “When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection.”; emphasis omitted).
If the limitation refers to (B), the Examiner recommends amending claim 2, lines 8–9 to recite “performing framed response message to the first device.”
“Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) . . . is appropriate.” MPEP § 2173.05(e); see also id. § 2111.01 (reciting “[i]f no reasonably clear meaning can be ascribed to the claim term after considering the specification and prior art, . . . the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d).”).
Claim 11, line 9; and claim 17, line 10 by analogy.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Fox and Chen
Claims 2, 3, 10–12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fox et al. (US 2017/0295261 A1; filed Apr. 7, 2016) in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0014233 A1; filed July 8, 2014).
Regarding claim 2, while Fox teaches a method (fig. 1; ¶¶ 40–44) comprising:
receiving, over a network (fig. 1, item 100), a message (“receiving an interest 132 from device 116” at ¶ 41; “interest 132 is for a content object identified by a name ‘/p1/q1,’ which is in namespace 154” at ¶ 42) to establish a persistent control channel between a first device and a second device (intended use in italics);
generating, over the network, a framed message (“Node 102 then includes interest 132 and an interface of origin 134 in a message 130, which can be a tunnel message (i.e., a message encapsulated in a tunneling protocol)” at ¶ 42) based on the received message, the framed message comprising the message formatted with tunneling protocol information (“Node 102 then includes interest 132 and an interface of origin 134 in a message 130, which can be a tunnel message (i.e., a message encapsulated in a tunneling protocol)” at ¶ 42);
routing (“sends message 130 via tunnel 140” at ¶ 42), over the network, via the tunneling protocol, the framed message to the second device (fig. 1, item 114; “Node 114 receives message 130” at ¶ 42); and
upon receiving a response message (“sends message 136 via tunnel 140 to node 102” at ¶ 42; “Node 102 receives message 136” at ¶ 42), performing reverse framing (“obtains the content object and interface of origin 134 by decapsulating message 136” at ¶ 43) of the response message causing communicating of the response message to the first device (fig. 1, item 102; “node 102 forwards the content object via interface 146 to device 116” at ¶ 43),
Fox does not teach the message identifying the first device and the second device.
Chen teaches a message identifying a first device and a second device (“a message from the first device that identifies the first device and the second device” at ¶ 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox’s message to identify the first device and the second device as taught by Chen to ensure a device responsible for framing the message to identify which devices are attempting to establish a persistent control channel. By identifying the devices, the device responsible for framing can route the framed message to the identified second device and return back to the first device.
Regarding claim 3, Fox teaches further comprising: establishing the persistent control channel (fig. 1, item 140; “node 102 can offload some of the PIT entries to a proxy node 114.” at ¶ 41 at least suggests node item 102 uses item 140 until some of the PIT entries are offloaded to node item 114 thereby keeping item 140 persistent) between the first device (fig. 1, item 102) and the second device (fig. 1, item 114) based on the response message (fig. 1, item 136).
Regarding claim 10, Fox does not teach further comprising the first device being a client device, and the second device being an endpoint device.
Fox teaches a client device (fig. 1, item 116) and an endpoint device (fig. 1, item 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox’s first device to be a client device and for Fox’s second device to be an endpoint device as taught by Fox “to facilitate accessing and processing [a vast amount of] digital content.” Fox ¶ 6.
Regarding claim 11, Fox teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (fig. 7, item 706) tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a device (fig. 7, item 702), perform a method comprising operations according to claim 2. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, claim 3 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 18.
Regarding claim 17, Fox teaches a system (fig. 1, item 702) comprising: a processor (fig. 7, item 704) configured to perform operations according to claim 2. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Fox, Chen, and Vasudevan
Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fox in view of Chen, and in further view of Vasudevan et al. (US 2019/0036735 A1; PCT filed Feb. 15, 2017).
Regarding claim 5, Fox does not teach further comprising: stripping the framed message of framing information; and communicating a tunneling payload to the second device.
Vasudevan teaches stripping a framed message of framing information (“the tunneling protocol header may be stripped off” and “remove the tunneling protocol header from the payload prior to the transmission” at ¶ 67); and
communicating a tunneling payload to a device (“transmit the payload to the core network” at ¶ 67; “the bare payload can be received at the routing unit 112” at ¶ 70; fig. 3, item 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox’s framed message to be stripped of framing information and for Fox to communicate a tunneling payload to the second device as taught by Vasudevan to reduce bandwidth usage, lower latency, and reduce processing overhead.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, claim 5 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 5 are equally applicable to claims 14 and 20.
Fox, Chen, and Chaboud
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fox in view of Chen, and in further view of Chaboud et al. (US 11,012,155 B1; filed June 19, 2020).
Regarding claim 7, Fox does not teach further comprising the message comprising a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for the second device.
Chaboud teaches a message comprising a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for a device (“a payload may include a command to be provided to a receiving device 110 or another type of device” at 10:53–55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox’s message to comprise a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for the second device as taught by Chaboud “to cause the receiving device 110 to perform a function.” Chaboud 10:60–61.
Regarding claim 8, Fox does not teach further comprising the message comprising a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for the first device.
Chaboud teaches a message comprising a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for a device (“a payload may include a command to be provided to a receiving device 110 or another type of device” at 10:53–55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox’s message to comprise a tunneling payload, the tunneling payload corresponding to a command for the first device as taught by Chaboud “to cause the receiving device 110 to perform a function.” Chaboud 10:60–61.
Fox, Chen, and Kundu
Claims 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Fox in view of Chen, and in further view of Kundu et al. (US 2022/0231965 A1; PCT filed Mar. 23, 2020).
Regarding claim 9, Fox does not teach further comprising: generating, based on the response message, a set of packets; and communicating the set of packets to the first device as the response message.
Kundu teaches generating, based on a message, a set of packets (“generate a plurality of packets from the message” at ¶ 40); and
communicating the set of packets to a device (“target NIC” at ¶ 40) as the message (“a large message that may be transmitted via a plurality of packets.” at ¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Fox to include further comprising: generating, based on the response message, a set of packets; and communicating the set of packets to the first device as the response message as taught by Kundu “to improve performance while preserving order at message boundaries.” Kundu ¶ 40.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, claim 9 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 9 are equally applicable to claims 16 and 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to (1) overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and (2) include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20180132102-A1; US-20210218704-A1; US-9325564-B1; US-6920503-B1; and US-20200304339-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights