Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,749. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims have a broader scope than the patent claims.
Instant claims
Patent Claims
1. A method, comprising:- receiving, by a gateway from a first subscriber device in a first network, a first address resolution protocol request to obtain a hardware address of a second subscriber device in a second network;- determining, by the gateway, the hardware address of the second subscriber device;- sending, by the gateway to the first subscriber device, a proxy address for the second subscriber device; and- facilitating, by the gateway, communication from the first subscriber device to the second subscriber device using the proxy address and the hardware address of the second subscriber device.
1. A method for proxy address resolution protocol processing, the method comprising: - sending, by a first subscriber device, an address resolution protocol processing broadcast to obtain an address for a second subscriber device, wherein the first subscriber device and the second subscriber device are in isolated routing prefix domains within a routing prefix; - receiving, by the first subscriber device from a gateway, a second subscriber device proxy address for the second subscriber device, wherein the second subscriber device proxy address is at least locally unique to a routing prefix domain associated with the first subscriber device; and - communicating, between the first subscriber device and the second subscriber device via the gateway, wherein the first subscriber device sends data using the second subscriber device proxy address and the gateway updates the data with a first subscriber device proxy address for the first subscriber device, and wherein the first subscriber device proxy address is at least locally unique to a routing prefix domain associated with the second subscriber device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Korotin (Pub. No.: US 2004/0095943 A1) hereinafter Korotin.
As per claim 1, Bollay discloses a method for proxy address resolution protocol processing, the method comprising: - receiving, by a gateway (Fig 3 item 310 “router or switch”) from a first subscriber device (Fig 3 one of the items 320-1-N ) in a first network (Fig 2), an address resolution protocol request to obtain a hardware address of a second subscriber device address (Bollay, Fig 4A, col 12 lines: 40-43, wherein “In processing step 402, PC1 sends out an ARP broadcast request packet, denoted MAC (PC 1), requesting the MAC address of PC2 (second subscriber device address)”); - determining, by the gateway, the hardware address of the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 9-19, wherein “In processing step 448, switch 330 records the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC2)) is the same device as MAC (PC2). This step is performed so that if switch 330 ever receives packets destined for MCAST (MAC (PC2)), it will know to forward such packets to PC2. In processing step 450, switch 310 forwards the response packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC1)) to PC1. Switch 310 knows that PC1 is the intended recipient of the packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC)) because switch 310 recorded the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC1)) is in fact the same device as PC1 in processing step 406 (FIG. 4A)”)- sending, by the gateway to the first subscriber device, a proxy address for the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 13 line: 54 - col 14 line: 21, wherein “Additionally, the source MAC address (MAC (PC2)) (a proxy address for the second subscriber device), which is the whole point of this ARP exchange, must be substituted with a multicast MAC address that will allow the MAC switch detailed later to forward packets to the correct devices. The appropriate conversion is performed by switch 330. In processing step 446, switch 330 converts the ARP reply from PC2 to a special multicast request packet denoted MCAST (MAC (PC2)) and then sends the modified packet to switch 310 of network segment 302 and any other segment that includes host specific routing. In processing step 448, switch 330 records the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC2)) is the same device as MAC (PC2). This step is performed so that if switch 330 ever receives packets destined for MCAST (MAC (PC2)), it will know to forward such packets to PC2. In processing step 450, switch 310 forwards the response packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC1)) to PC1. Switch 310 knows that PC1 is the intended recipient of the packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC)) because switch 310 recorded the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC1)) is in fact the same device as PC1 in processing step 406 (FIG. 4A). Then, PC1 equates the MAC address MCAST (MAC (PC2)) to the IP address of PC2 and stores this equality in it's ARP table”); and - facilitating, by the gateway, communication from the first subscriber device to the second subscriber device using the proxy address and the hardware address of the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 36-41, wherein “From this point forward, whenever PC1 needs to communicate with PC2, and vice-versa, they will use the special MCAST (MAC) addresses that are stored in their respective ARP tables. This allows for easy separation and forwarding of packets using a MAC switch that is resident on switches 310 and 330”);
As pre claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Korotin discloses wherein determining the hardware address of the second subscriber device comprises: broadcasting, by the gateway on the second network, a second address resolution protocol request to obtain a hardware address of the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A, col 12 lines: 40-43, wherein “In processing step 404, switch 310 takes the ARP request packet and converts the packet by changing the source address "MAC (PC1)" to a special multicast MAC address. The special multicast MAC address can be used to internally uniquely identify that PC. This converted packet is denoted MCAST (MAC (PC1)))”, col 13 lines: 20-28, wherein “In processing step 408, switch 310 takes the modified packet and sends it to all other network segments. In particular, switch 310 forwards the modified packet to network segment 304. In processing step 410, devices on network segment 304 see a multicast packet having a source address of MCAST (MAC (PC1)), because of the special conversion performed by switch 310 during processing step 404”); and receiving, by the gateway from the second subscriber device, the hardware address of the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4B, col 13 lines: 39-40, wherein “In processing step 444, PC2 sends a response packet (ARP reply) denoted MAC (PC2) to MCAST (MAC (PC1)”).
As pre claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and Bollay discloses updating, by the gateway, a mapping list with the hardware address of the second subscriber device and the proxy address for the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4B, col 14 lines: 9-21, wherein “In processing step 448, switch 330 records the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC2)) is the same device as MAC (PC2). This step is performed so that if switch 330 ever receives packets destined for MCAST (MAC (PC2)), it will know to forward such packets to PC2. In processing step 450, switch 310 forwards the response packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC1)) to PC1. Switch 310 knows that PC1 is the intended recipient of the packet intended for MCAST (MAC (PC)) because switch 310 recorded the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC1)) is in fact the same device as PC1 in processing step 406 (FIG. 4A). Then, PC1 equates the MAC address MCAST (MAC (PC2)) to the IP address of PC2 and stores this equality in it's ARP table”).
As pre claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein determining the hardware address of the second subscriber device comprises: determining, by the gateway, the hardware address of the second subscriber device using a mapping list associated with the second network (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 36-41, wherein “From this point forward, whenever PC1 needs to communicate with PC2, and vice-versa, they will use the special MCAST (MAC) addresses that are stored in their respective ARP tables. This allows for easy separation and forwarding of packets using a MAC switch that is resident on switches 310 and 330”).
As pre claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the facilitating communication comprises: receiving, by the gateway from the first subscriber device, data addressed to the proxy address; and sending, by the gateway to the second subscriber device, the data using the hardware address of the second subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 36-41, wherein “From this point forward, whenever PC1 needs to communicate with PC2, and vice-versa, they will use the special MCAST (MAC) addresses that are stored in their respective ARP tables. This allows for easy separation and forwarding of packets using a MAC switch that is resident on switches 310 and 330”).
As pre claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the facilitating communication further comprises: updating, by the gateway, the data with a second proxy address for the first subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 36-41, wherein “From this point forward, whenever PC1 needs to communicate with PC2, and vice-versa, they will use the special MCAST (MAC) addresses that are stored in their respective ARP tables. This allows for easy separation and forwarding of packets using a MAC switch that is resident on switches 310 and 330”).
As pre claim 7, claim 6 is incorporated and Bollay discloses receiving, by the gateway from the second subscriber device, second data addressed to the second proxy address; and sending, by the gateway to the first subscriber device, the second data using a hardware address of the first subscriber device (Bollay, Fig 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 36-41, wherein “From this point forward, whenever PC1 needs to communicate with PC2, and vice-versa, they will use the special MCAST (MAC) addresses that are stored in their respective ARP tables. This allows for easy separation and forwarding of packets using a MAC switch that is resident on switches 310 and 330”).
As pre claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the first network and the second network are in isolated domains within a routing prefix (Bollay, Fig 3, 4A-4B, col 12 lines: 42-45, wherein “To illustrate processing step 402, consider the case where PC 1 has the IP address 10.10.1.6 and is on network segment 302 (FIG. 3). PC1 sends out an ARP request for PC2, which has the IP address 10.10.1.7. ”).
As pre claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the first network and the second network are adjacent local area networks within a distributive local area network environment (Bollay, Fig 3, 4A-4B, col 12 lines: 42-45, wherein “To illustrate processing step 402, consider the case where PC 1 has the IP address 10.10.1.6 and is on network segment 302 (FIG. 3). PC1 sends out an ARP request for PC2, which has the IP address 10.10.1.7. ”).
As pre claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the proxy address is generated by the gateway (Bollay, 4A-4B, col 13 lines: 59-65, wherein “In processing step 446, switch 330 converts the ARP reply from PC2 to a special multicast request packet denoted MCAST (MAC (PC2)) and then sends the modified packet to switch 310 of network segment 302 and any other segment that includes host specific routing”).
As pre claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the proxy address is at least locally unique to a routing prefix domain associated with the first network (Bollay, 4A-4B, col 14 lines: 9-13, wherein “In processing step 448, switch 330 records the fact that MCAST (MAC (PC2)) is the same device as MAC (PC2). This step is performed so that if switch 330 ever receives packets destined for MCAST (MAC (PC2)), it will know to forward such packets to PC2”).
As pre claim 12, claim 1 is incorporated and Bollay discloses wherein the hardware address is a medium access control address, and the proxy address is a proxy medium access control address (Bollay, 4A-4B, col 13 lines: 59-65, wherein “In processing step 446, switch 330 converts the ARP reply from PC2 to a special multicast request packet denoted MCAST (MAC (PC2)) and then sends the modified packet to switch 310 of network segment 302 and any other segment that includes host specific routing”).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-12.In addition, Bollay discloses
first user equipment within a first subscriber domain and assigned a first Internet protocol address from a routing prefix (Bollay, Fig 3, col 12 lines: 42-45, wherein “To illustrate processing step 402, consider the case where PC 1 has the IP address 10.10.1.6 and is on network segment 302 (FIG. 3). PC1 sends out an ARP request for PC2, which has the IP address 10.10.1.7. ”);
a second user equipment within a second subscriber domain and assigned a second Internet protocol address from the routing prefix (Bollay, Fig 3, col 12 lines: 42-45, wherein “To illustrate processing step 402, consider the case where PC 1 has the IP address 10.10.1.6 and is on network segment 302 (FIG. 3). PC1 sends out an ARP request for PC2, which has the IP address 10.10.1.7. ”), wherein the first subscriber domain and the second subscriber domain are communicatively isolated (Bollay, Fig 3, col 12 lines: 58-60, wherein “All devices on network segment 302 see the packet as it is. However, PC2 is on a different network segment so MAC(PC1) does not reach PC2”); and - a gateway comprising a processor (Bollay, Fig 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7212. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 3:30 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on ario.etienne@uspto.gov. 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.
/HAMZA N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights