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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 19/185,119 last filed on April 21st, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, directed to MODIFICATION OF A SOCKET NETWORK NAMESPACE IN RESPONSE TO A SYSTEM CALL INTERCEPTION.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,251 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed scope is a variation of the same concept directed towards intercepting and modifying a system call that identifies a socket and a target destination.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0012110 A1 to Dhillion et al. (referred to hereafter as “Dhillion”).
As to claim 1, Dhillion discloses a computer-implemented method for modifying a connection system call issued by a client application, the method comprising:
intercepting the connection system call, wherein the connection system call identifies a socket and a target destination (Dhillion discloses of a similar system that can intercept and modify the call and change the destination if needed, e.g., ¶¶ 34, 37-40);
generating one or more modified system call parameters based at least in part on the target destination (modifying the call involves changing the parameters related to the target destination, ¶¶ 26 and 39);
generating a new socket based on the one or more modified system call parameters (the modifications can involve changing the values of one or more parameters, e.g., ¶ 39); and
issuing a modified connection system call that specifies the new socket (generates a modified call to a different target destination, e.g., ¶¶ 39-40).
As to claim 2, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the new socket comprises:
sending a socket generation request to a system kernel (the request can go to the kernel for kernel level services, e.g., ¶¶ 37-38 and 48-50); and
receiving a file descriptor corresponding to the new socket (client gets the new file descriptor to the new socket from the kernel, e.g., ¶¶ 48-50).
As to claim 3, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the new socket is created using a first socket type that is different from a second socket type associated with the socket identified in the connection system call (the modification can alter the type of system call, e.g., ¶¶ 38 and 42).
As to claim 4, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more modified system call parameters comprises determining that the target destination is a local destination, and generating the new socket comprises generating a socket pair using a socketpair system call (a new socketpair() call for a local connection, e.g., ¶¶ 42 and 53).
As to claim 5, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more modified system call parameters comprises:
determining that the target destination is an external destination (external destinations can be determined and modified as well, by the system, e.g., ¶¶ 40 and 56); and
generating the new socket using a socket system call (e.g., ¶¶ 40, 53 and 56-57).
As to claim 6, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more modified system call parameters comprises:
transferring execution to a second namespace (modified to go to a second namespace, e.g., ¶ 42); and
generating the new socket in the second namespace (e.g., ¶ 42).
As to claim 7, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the second namespace is a network namespace corresponding to an IPv4 transition environment (Following claims 1 and 6, modifications can be re-directed to IPv4 transition namespaces, e.g., ¶¶ 36, 46, and 54).
As to claim 8, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more modified system call parameters comprises identifying a new target destination address that replaces the target destination (modifications can involve replacing the target destination, e.g., ¶¶ 39-40).
As to claim 9, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a plurality of socket options associated with the socket identified in the connection system call (applying socket options, e.g., ¶ 55); and
applying the plurality of socket options to the new socket (e.g., ¶ 55).
As to claim 10, Dhillion further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising notifying the client application that a connection has been successfully established using the new socket (e.g., ¶ 37).
As to claim 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 12, Dhillion further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11, wherein the operations further include replacing the socket identified in the connection system call with the new socket using an input/output (I/O) control operation (addfd() was described as an I/O control operation that the system manager can use when changing to a new socket, e.g., ¶ 59).
As to claim 13, Dhillion further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 12, wherein the I/O control operation comprises calling a function with parameters that identify the new socket and the socket identified in the connection system call (Following claims 11 and 12, the addfd() can further involve parameters, e.g., ¶ 59).
As to claim 14, Dhillion further discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11, wherein the client application is unaware that the socket specified in the connection system call has been replaced by the new socket (e.g., ¶ 61).
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 16, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 17, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights