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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 02/21/2025, is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2023/ 032526 with an international filing date of 09/12/2023 which claims priority from Provisional Application 63/406190, filed 09/13/2022 and claims priority from Provisional Application 63/406207, filed 09/13/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 and 24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/13/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims recite an apparatus comprising functional blocks which may be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean merely software modules. Thus, the claims are not limited to a statutory embodiment. For a claim to be qualified as a machine, as in the four categories of invention, the claimed apparatus should clearly define at least one hardware component in order to fall within the meaning of a machine.
Computer programs claimed as “a device identity assignor” per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See: Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035; MPEP § 2106.01, specifically the Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (1300 O.G. 142 22NOV2005).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “device that” as recited in claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 recites the term, “were” which should read: where. Claim 14 contains similar issue.
Claims 2-3 contain grammatical issues. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 14-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al. (2007/0180142) in view of Daruwalla et al. (7,974,201).
As per claim 1, Small et al. teaches a network system comprising: (a) a remote device that maintains a pool of GateIDs, where each of said GateIDs is suitable to be provided to a provider of a call service of said network [Small et al., paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0171 and 0179];
(b) said remote device assigning a GateID to a device, were said GateID is not currently assigned to any other device;
(c) said remote device not assigning any of said GateIDs to said any other device while a corresponding one of GateIDs is assigned to said device;
(d) where said remote device is only capable of assigning said pool of GateIDs among a plurality of devices in a manner such that none of said pool of GateIDs are assigned to more than one device at any particular time [Small et al., paragraphs 0057, 0092-0094, 0097, 0114-0115 and 0119].
But Small et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Daruwalla et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, (b) said remote device assigning a set of GateIDs to a device [Daruwalla et al., col. 9, ll. 36-47 and col. 11, ll.46-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Small et al. with Daruwalla et al. in order to allow nodes which are members of the same VPN within a shared access network to exchange packets in a manner which does not require the packets to be routed outside the shared access network.
As per claim 2, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 1 wherein said remote device said set of GateIDs to said device in response to a request from a device [Daruwalla et al., col. 2, ll. 29-43].
As per claim 3, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 1 wherein said remote device said set of GateIDs to said device automatically [Daruwalla et al., col. 7, ll. 36-47].
As per claim 4, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 1 further comprising said provider of said service receiving one of said assigned GateIDs of said set of GateIDs from said device [Small et al., 0105].
As per claim 5, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 4 wherein said network system provides said service to said device upon verification of said one of said assigned GateIDs being assigned to said device [Small et al., 0118].
As per claim 6, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 1 wherein said remote device releases one of said set of GateIDs from being assigned to said device and assigns said one of said set of GateIDs to a different device [Small et al., 0137].
As per claim 7, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 1 wherein said remote device assigns said set of GateIDs to include a common attribute [Small et al., 0144].
As per claim 9, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 7 wherein said common attribute includes a common set of bits set within an integer part of the set of values [Small et al., 0155].
As per claim 10, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 7 wherein said common attribute includes a common range of characters within the set of values [Small et al., 0118].
As per claim 14, Small et al. teaches a network system comprising: (a) a device identity assignor that maintains a pool of unique identifiers, where each of said unique identifiers is suitable to be provided to a provider of a service of said network to receive said service [Small et al., paragraphs 0093-0094, 0096, 0171 and 0179];
(b) said device identity assignor assigning a unique identifier to a device, were said unique identifier is not currently assigned to any other device;
(c) said device identity assignor not assigning any of said unique identifiers to said any other device while a corresponding one of unique identifiers is assigned to said device;
(d) where said device identity assignor is only capable of assigning said pool of unique identifiers among a plurality of devices in a manner such that none of said pool of unique identifiers are assigned to more than one device at any particular time [Small et al., paragraphs 0057, 0092-0094, 0097, 0114-0115 and 0119].
But Small et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Daruwalla et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches, (b) said device identity assignor assigning a set of unique identifiers to a device [Daruwalla et al., col. 9, ll. 36-47 and col. 11, ll.46-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Small et al. with Daruwalla et al. in order to allow nodes which are members of the same VPN within a shared access network to exchange packets in a manner which does not require the packets to be routed outside the shared access network.
As per claim 15, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 14 wherein said device identity assigns said set of unique identifiers to said device in response to a request from a device [Daruwalla et al., col. 2, ll. 29-43].
As per claim 16, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 14 wherein said device identity assigns said set of unique identifiers to said device automatically [Daruwalla et al., col. 7, ll. 36-47].
As per claim 17, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 14 further comprising said provider of said service receiving one of said assigned unique identifiers of said set of unique identifiers from said device [Small et al., 0105].
As per claim 18, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 17 wherein said network system provides said service to said device upon verification of said one of said assigned unique identifiers being assigned to said device [Small et al., 0118].
As per claim 19, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 14 wherein said device identity assignor releases one of said set of unique identifiers from being assigned to said device and assigns said one of said set of unique identifiers to a different device [Small et al., 0137].
As per claim 20, Small-Daruwalla teaches the network system of claim 14 wherein said device identity assignor assigns said set of unique identifiers to include a common attribute [Small et al., 0144].
Claims 22 and 23 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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 on (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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights