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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “update…to be from the pluggable transceiver…” in lines 7-8. It’s unclear to examiner what “update…to be from the pluggable transceiver…” meant? For the purpose of examination, examiner assumes that the above limitation as “update…by the pluggable transceiver…”
Double Patenting
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,499.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the cited patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Instant Claim 1. A pluggable transceiver, comprising: one or more hardware processors, configured to: receive, from a client network device, a control message that includes a control enablement parameter; receive at least one of a first message, from the client network device, or a second message from a server network device; update, after receiving the control enablement parameter, the at least one of the first message or the second message to be from the pluggable transceiver or a network device associated with the pluggable transceiver; and send at least one of the updated first message to the server network device or the updated second message to the client network device.
Conflicting Claim 1 of cited patent 12,294,499. A pluggable transceiver, comprising: one or more hardware processors, configured to: receive, from a client network device, a first control message that includes a control enablement parameter and a server identifier parameter that indicates an Internet protocol (IP) address of a server network device; receive, from the client network device and after receiving the first control message, a first message that indicates a first source IP address as being an IP address of the client network device, a first destination IP address as being an IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a first source port as being a port of the client network device, and a first destination port as being a port of the pluggable transceiver; update the first message to indicate the first source IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, the first destination IP address as being the IP address of the server network device, and the first destination port as being a port of the server network device; send, to the server network device, the updated first message; receive, from the server network device and after receiving the first control message, a second message that indicates a second source IP address as being an IP address of the server network device, a second destination IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a second source port as being a port of the server network device, and a second destination port as being the port of the client network device; update the second message to indicate the second source IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, the second destination IP address as being the IP address of the client network device, and the second source port as being the port of the pluggable transceiver; and send, to the client network device, the updated second message.
Instant claim 2 corresponds to conflicting claim 3 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 3 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 4 corresponds to conflicting claim 5 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 5 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 6 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 7 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 8 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 9 corresponds to conflicting claim 9 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 10 corresponds to conflicting claim 9 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 11 corresponds to conflicting claim 9 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 12 corresponds to conflicting claim 9 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 13 corresponds to conflicting claim 14 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 14 corresponds to conflicting claim 14 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 15 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 16 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 17 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 18 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 19 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
Instant claim 20 corresponds to conflicting claim 15 of patent 12,294,499.
The instant claims merely broaden the scope of the conflicting claims. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3,5-13,15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFazio et al (us 2022/0398563) (hereinafter Defazio) in view of Brunner et al (us 2017/0223151) (hereinafter Brunner).
As regarding claim 1, Defazio discloses one or more hardware processors (see Defazio fig.7, processor 720), configured to: receive, from a client network device, a control message that includes a control enablement parameter (see Defazio 0139, 0154, receive message with instruction to activate transceiver).
Defazio is silent in regard to the concept of receive at least one of a first message, from the client network device, or a second message from a server network device; update, after receiving the control enablement parameter, the at least one of the first message or the second message to be from the pluggable transceiver or a network device associated with the pluggable transceiver; and send at least one of the updated first message to the server network device or the updated second message to the client network device.
Brunner teaches the concept of receive at least one of a first message, from the client network device, or a second message from a server network device (see Brunner 0034, 0046, receive data packet); update, after receiving the control enablement parameter (see Brunner 0046-0050, plug-in the SFP into the first networking device (i.e, control enablement parameter) the at least one of the first message or the second message to be from the pluggable transceiver or a network device associated with the pluggable transceiver (see Brunner 0048-0050, modify header portion of the received packet); and send at least one of the updated first message to the server network device or the updated second message to the client network device (see Brunner 0049 forward the modified packet).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brunner to Defazio because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Defazio with Brunner’s teaching for the purpose of enhancing packet processing capability for the device.
As regarding claim 2, Defazio-Brunner discloses updating the first message comprises: updating at least one of a network layer header or a transport layer header of the first message (see Brunner 0048-0050, modify header portion of the packet). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 2.
As regarding claim 3, Defazio-Brunner discloses the first message is a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) message, a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) message, or a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) message (see Brunner 0055, UDP, TCP). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 3.
As regarding claim 5, Defazio-Brunner discloses the first message indicates at least one of: a source Internet protocol (IP) address as being an IP address of the client network device, a destination IP address as being an IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a source port as being a port of the client network device, or a destination port as being a port of the pluggable transceiver (see Brunner 0073, source IP address). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 5.
As regarding claim 6, Defazio-Brunner discloses to update the at least one of the first message or the second message, the one or more hardware processors are configured to: update the first message by updating the at least one of: the source IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, the destination IP address as being an IP address of the server network device, or the destination port as being a port of the server network device (see Brunner 0052,0056-0058, destination address, destination port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 7, Defazio-Brunner discloses the second message indicates at least one of: a source Internet protocol (IP) address as being an IP address of the server network device, a destination IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a source port as being a port of the server network device, or a second destination port as being the port of the client network device (see Brunner 0052,0056-0058, destination address, destination port, source address, source port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 7.
As regarding claim 8, Defazio-Brunner discloses update the second message by updating the at least one of: the source IP address as being the IP address of the pluggable transceiver, the destination IP address as being the IP address of the client network device, or the source port as being the port of the pluggable transceiver (see Brunner 0052, 0056-0058, destination address, destination port, source address, source port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 8.
As regarding claim 9, Defazio-Brunner discloses receive at least one of a first message, from a client network device, or a second message from a server network device (see Brunner 0034, 0046, receive data packet); update the at least one of the first message or the second message to allow network traffic to be communicated between the client network device and the server network device (see Brunner 0048-0050, modify header portion of the received packet); send at least one of the updated first message to the server network device or the updated second message to the client network device (see Brunner 0049 forward the modified packet); and receive, after sending the at least one of the updated first message or the updated second message, a third message comprising a control disablement indication parameter (see Defazio 0185, 0188, send message to deactivate the transceiver). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 9.
As regarding claim 10, Defazio-Brunner discloses a network layer header of the at least one of the first message or the second message (see Brunner 0055, UP and TCP packet). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 10.
As regarding claim 11, Defazio-Brunner discloses a transport layer header of the at least one of the first message or the second message (see Brunner 0055, UP and TCP packet). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 11.
As regarding claim 12, Defazio-Brunner discloses the control disablement indication parameter is associated with the pluggable transceiver ceasing to update a fourth message (see Defazio 0185, 0188, send message to deactivate the transceiver).
As regarding claim 13, Defazio-Brunner discloses disable, based on receiving the third message, a testing functionality of the pluggable transceiver (see Defazio 0185, 0188, send message to deactivate the transceiver).
As regarding claim 15, Defazio-Brunner discloses receiving, by a pluggable transceiver, at least one of a first message, from a client network device, or a second message from a server network device (see Brunner 0034, 0046, receive data packet); updating, by the pluggable transceiver, the at least one of the first message or the second message to allow network traffic to be communicated between the client network device and the server network device (see Brunner 0048-0050, modify header portion of the received packet); sending, by the pluggable transceiver, at least one of the updated first message to the server network device or the updated second message to the client network device (see Brunner 0049 forward the modified packet); and receiving, by the pluggable transceiver and after sending the at least one of the updated first message or the updated second message, a third message comprising a control disablement indication parameter (see Defazio 0185, 0188, send message to deactivate the transceiver). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 15.
As regarding claim 16, Defazio-Brunner discloses updating the first message to indicate at least one of: a source Internet Protocol (IP) address as being an IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a destination IP address as being an IP address of the server network device, or a destination port as being a port of the server network device (see Brunner 0052, 0056-0058, destination address, destination port, source address, source port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 16.
As regarding claim 17, Defazio-Brunner discloses updating the second message comprises: updating the second message to indicate at least one of: a source Internet Protocol (IP) address as being an IP address of the pluggable transceiver, a destination IP address as being an IP address of the client network device, or a destination port as being a port of the pluggable transceiver (see Brunner 0052, 0056-0058, destination address, destination port, source address, source port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 17.
As regarding claim 18, Defazio-Brunner discloses the at least one of the first message or the second message is updated based on a data structure indicating that the pluggable transceiver is to update messages from at least one of the client network device or the server network device (see Brunner 0052, 0056-0058, destination address, destination port, source address, source port). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 18.
As regarding claim 19, Defazio-Brunner discloses updating, based on receiving the third message, a data structure to indicate that the pluggable transceiver is to cease updating messages from at least one of the client network device or the server network device (see Defazio 0185, 0188, send message to deactivate the transceiver).
Claims 4,14,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeFazio-Brunner as applied to claims 1,9,15 above and further in view of Khoryae et al (us 2015/0188690) (hereinafter Khoryae).
As regarding claim 4, the combination of Defazio-Brunner discloses the invention as claims in claim 1 above. However, Defazio-Brunner is silent in regard to the concept of enable, based on receiving the control message, a testing functionality associated with the client network device and transmit, based on enabling the testing functionality, a response message, wherein the first message is received after transmitting the response message.
Khoryae teaches the concept of enable, based on receiving the control message, a testing functionality associated with the client network device and transmit, based on enabling the testing functionality, a response message, wherein the first message is received after transmitting the response message (see Khoryae 0069, receive activation and send acknowledgement of the activation).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khoryae to Defazio-Brunner because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Defazio-Brunner with Khoryae’s teaching for the purpose of providing operational reliability to the system.
As regarding claim 14, the combination of Defazio-Brunner discloses the invention as claims in claim 9 above. However, Defazio-Brunner is silent in regard to the concept of transmit, based on receiving the third message, a fourth message comprising a control disablement acknowledgement parameter.
Khoryae teaches the concept of transmit, based on receiving the third message, a fourth message comprising a control disablement acknowledgement parameter (see Khoryae 0069, receive deactivation and send acknowledgement of the deactivation).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khoryae to Defazio-Brunner because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Defazio-Brunner with Khoryae’s teaching for the purpose of providing operational reliability to the system.
As regarding claim 20, the combination of Defazio-Brunner discloses the invention as claims in claim 15 above. However, Defazio-Brunner is silent in regard to the concept of disabling, based on receiving the third message, a testing functionality of the pluggable transceiver; and transmitting, based on disabling the testing functionality, a fourth message comprising a control disablement acknowledgement parameter.
Khoryae teaches the concept of disabling, based on receiving the third message, a testing functionality of the pluggable transceiver; and transmitting, based on disabling the testing functionality, a fourth message comprising a control disablement acknowledgement parameter (see Khoryae 0069, receive deactivation and send acknowledgement of the deactivation).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Khoryae to Defazio-Brunner because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Defazio-Brunner with Khoryae’s teaching for the purpose of providing operational reliability to the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights