UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`111916,973
`
`11114/2008
`
`Steven Leslie Pope
`
`23465-003US1
`
`1989
`
`26161
`7590
`03/07/2013
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (BO)
`P.O. BOX 1022
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
`
`EXAMINER
`
`PARK, JEONG S
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2454
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/07/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`P ATDOCTC @fr.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`001
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`11/916,973
`
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`POPE ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`2454
`Jeong S. Park
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -(cid:173)
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE ;2 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR t. t 36(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § t33).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR t .704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1 )IZ! Responsive to communication(s) filed on 13 December 2012.
`2a)IZ! This action is FINAL.
`2b)0 This action is non-final.
`3)0 An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`__ ;the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C. D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)[8J Claim(s) 93-99 and 101-108 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`7)[8J Claim(s) 93-99 and 101-108 is/are rejected.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`9)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htto:/iwww.us..Qto.aov/oatents/init events/gQh/index.jsQ or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@us.Qto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`1 0)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11 )0 The drawing(s) filed on __ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment{s)
`1) [8J Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`
`2) [8Jinformation Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 1116/2013.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Off1ce
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09·12)
`
`3) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`4) 0 Other: __ .
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130227
`
`002
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This communication is in response to Application No. 11/916,973 filed on
`
`11/14/2008. The amendment presented on 12/13/2012, which cancels claims 1-92,
`
`100, and 109-141, provides change to the specification, and amends claims 93-99 and
`
`101-108, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 93-99 and 101-108 have been examined.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`2.
`
`The information disclosure statement (I OS) submitted on 1/16/2013 is being
`
`considered by the examiner.
`
`Specification
`
`3.
`
`The amendment to the Title "RECEPTION ACCORDING TO A DATA
`
`TRANSFER PROTOCOL OF DATA DIRECTED TO ANY OF A PLURALITY OF
`
`DESTINATION ENTITIES FOR DATA EXTRACTION" has been considered and is
`
`acceptable.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`4.
`
`The amendment presented on 12/13/2012 providing change to the claims is
`
`noted. All prior objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
`
`003
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 1 02 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 93-95, 98, 101, 104, and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Ronciak et al. (hereinafter Ronciak)(US 2006/0168400) in view
`
`of Goto (US 5,951 ,645), and further in view of Reeves et al. (hereinafter Reeves)(US
`
`2006/0031525).
`
`Regarding claim 93, Ronciak teaches as follows:
`
`A data processing system (interpreted as computer 2 in figure 1) for receiving
`
`data from a network (packet data received by a network controller is parsed and at least
`
`a portion of a received packet is stored by the network controller in both a host memory
`
`of a system and also in a cache memory of the central processing unit of the system,
`
`see, Abstract), and processing that data in accordance with a network protocol to
`
`extract traffic data therefrom (the transport layer can unpack the payload from the
`
`received packet (equivalent to applicant's extracting traffic data) and transfer the data to
`
`the device driver, operating system or application, see, paragraph [0023]), the data
`
`processing system having:
`
`a memory (6 in figure 1 );
`
`a network interface (interpreted as network controller, 12 in figure 1) for receiving
`
`the data from the network and storing the data in the memory (a packet is received from
`
`004
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 4
`
`a network and is stored in a system host memory such as the memory, see, paragraph
`
`[0029]);
`
`an operating system for supporting one or more applications (1 0 in figure 2); an
`
`application (14 in figure 1) supported by the operating system (the operations of each of
`
`the various protocol layers may be implemented in hardware, firmware, drivers,
`
`operating systems, applications or other software, see, paragraph [0017]); and
`
`a protocol processing entity (interpreted as lower protocol layers 16 in figure 1 ),
`
`the protocol processing entity being arranged to perform protocol processing of data in
`
`the memory (the network layer of the lower protocol layers handles network
`
`communication and stores received packets in a packet buffer prior to being processed
`
`by a transport layer of the upper protocol layers, see, paragraph [0021 ]).
`
`Ronciak does not teach of performing protocol processing of data in response to
`
`signaling from an application.
`
`Goto teaches as follows:
`
`The communication control section (16a in figure 1) performs network protocol
`
`processing (TL, NL, and DL) for connection to the corresponding node in accordance
`
`with the data transmission request from the processing section 13a according to the
`
`application program 3a (equivalent to applicant's performing in response to signaling
`
`from an application), thereby transmitting the data to the distant node 1 b (see, col. 4,
`
`lines 14-19).
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify Ronciak with Goto to include the communication control section as
`
`005
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 5
`
`taught by Goto in order to provide a user interface of processing protocol conversion
`
`through the application program.
`
`Regarding claims 100 and 101, Ronciak in view of Goto does not teach the
`
`signal from the application is to request whether data is available.
`
`Reeves teaches as follows:
`
`A procedure for checking all connections using the operating system call select().
`
`A request is made to see whether there is data available to be read from the
`
`corresponding connection (see, paragraph [0075]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto with Reeves to include the well-
`
`known select call as taught by Reeves in order to efficiently determine whether there is
`
`data available to be read from.
`
`Regarding claim 94, Ronciak teaches as follows:
`
`Wherein the protocol processing entity is a software entity that runs at, a higher
`
`level than the operating system (the operations of each of the various protocol layers
`
`may be implemented in hardware, firmware, drivers, operating systems, applications
`
`or other software, see, paragraph [0017]).
`
`Regarding claim 95, Ronciak teaches as follows:
`
`Wherein the protocol processing entity runs at user level (when the operations of
`
`protocol layers are implemented in applications as presented above in claim 94, the
`
`applications inherently run at user level).
`
`Regarding claim 98, Ronciak teaches as follows:
`
`006
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 6
`
`Wherein the memory (interpreted as host memory 6 in figure 1) comprises a
`
`plurality of buffers each associated with a respective endpoint of the data processing
`
`system (the buffer (21 in figure 1) may be a part of the host memory, see, paragraph
`
`[0043]).
`
`Regarding claim 101, Ronciak in view of Goto teaches all limitations except for
`
`the select call.
`
`Reeves teaches as follows:
`
`A procedure for checking all connections using the operating system call select().
`
`A request is made to see whether there is data available to be read from the
`
`corresponding connection (see, paragraph [0075]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto with Reeves to include the well-
`
`known select call as taught by Reeves in order to efficiently determine whether there is
`
`data available to be read from.
`
`Regarding claim 104, Goto teaches as follows:
`
`The communication control section performs network protocol processing for
`
`connection to the corresponding node in accordance with the data transmission request
`
`from the processing section according to the application program, thereby transmitting
`
`the data to the distant node (see, col. 4, lines 14-19). The examiner interpreted the
`
`signal as the data transmission request from the application program to perform
`
`protocol processing.
`
`Therefore it is rejected for similar reason as presented above in claim 93.
`
`007
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 106, Ronciak teaches as follows:
`
`Wherein the network protocol is TCP/IP (see, paragraph [0019]).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 96, 97, 105, 107, and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Ronciak et al. (hereinafter Ronciak)(US 2006/0168400) in view of
`
`Goto (US 5,951 ,645) and Reeves et al. (hereinafter Reeves)(US 2006/0031525), and
`
`further in view of Cain et al. (hereinafter Cain)(US 6,901 ,594).
`
`Regarding claims 96, 97, 105, and 107, Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves
`
`does not teach details of the protocol processing entity including API, thread nor
`
`function library.
`
`Cain teaches as follows:
`
`An apparatus and method of establishing communication between a first
`
`application and a second application (see, Abstract); and
`
`the Control Path Services function library ("Control Path API 34") provides the
`
`functionality necessary for inter-application communication. The application programs
`
`may be any application (e.g., a thread or process) executing on a given routing
`
`platform, such as a driver program, a terminating program (e.g., SNMP), a router
`
`configuration program, a routing program (e.g., an IP routing program), a protocol stack,
`
`or a router table management application (discussed above). To that end, the Control
`
`Path API includes a set of communication functions in a function library, and various
`
`rules detailing the communication responsibilities of an application program (see, col. 8,
`
`line 60 to col. 9, line 5).
`
`008
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 8
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves with Cain to include the
`
`application program comprising API, function library and thread as taught by Cain in
`
`order to provide efficient interface tool to the application user.
`
`Regarding claim 108, Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves does not teach
`
`whether the protocol processing entity supports Posix.
`
`Cain teaches as follows:
`
`Each application program includes a single message queue for receiving
`
`messages from other application programs, and an event dispatcher that retrieves
`
`messages from the message queue. The message queue and event dispatcher are
`
`implemented as a part of the System Services API (see, col. 10, lines 57-65); and
`
`the System Services API supports a file system that is available with
`
`conventionally known POSIX calls to conventional POSIX functions, such as open,
`
`close, read, and write (see, col. 19, line 65 to col. 20, line 1 ).
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves with Cain to include the
`
`application program supporting POSIX file system as taught by Cain in order to
`
`efficiently intercommunicate between different file systems.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over Ronciak
`
`et al. (hereinafter Ronciak)(US 2006/0168400) in view of Goto (US 5,951 ,645) and
`
`009
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 9
`
`Reeves et al. (hereinafter Reeves)(US 2006/0031525), and further in view of Apel et al.
`
`(hereinafter Apei)(US 2002/0183864).
`
`Regarding claim 99, Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves teaches all limitations
`
`except for the event buffer storing data indicating events.
`
`Apel teaches as follows:
`
`The second device also includes a processor programmed to, upon the detection
`
`of an event, store an indication of the event in the event buffer and store the value
`
`of the second counter at the time of the detection of the event as an event counter value
`
`in the event buffer (see, paragraph [0009]).
`
`It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves with Apel to include the event
`
`buffer as taught by Apel in order to efficiently manage events in a separate buffer
`
`space.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 102 and 103 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Ronciak et al. (hereinafter Ronciak)(US 2006/0168400) in view of Goto (US
`
`5,951 ,645) and Reeves et al. (hereinafter Reeves)(US 2006/0031525), and further in
`
`view of Mallory et al. (hereinafter Mallory)(US 6,988,262).
`
`Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves teaches all limitations except that the call is
`
`resolved by either a static linkage or dynamic linkage.
`
`Mallory teaches as follows:
`
`010
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 10
`
`The embedded execution engine includes hooks to call-back interface
`
`procedures that are resolved by static or dynamic linking or by run-time initialization of
`
`the execution engine. In computer programming parlance, a "hook" is a call to a
`
`procedure external to a compiled object (see, col. 16, lines 1-16).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention to modify Ronciak in view of Goto and Reeves with Mallory to
`
`include the well-known static and dynamic linking mechanism as taught by Mallory in
`
`order for developers of the host program to achieve different program functionality by
`
`tailoring the call-back interface procedure (see, Mallory, col. 16, lines 21-23).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/2013 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Applicant's Arguments
`
`In the remarks, the applicant argues as followings:
`
`Regarding claim 93, Ronciak is not understood to disclose or suggest the feature
`
`of signaling from the application to request whether data is available for one or more
`
`endpoints of the data processing system.
`
`B.
`
`Response to Arguments:
`
`In response to argument, the examiner interpreted the applicant's argued
`
`limitations as the application sends requesting signal whether there is data waiting in
`
`011
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 11
`
`the network controller buffer (Ronciak, 21 in figure 1) to be processed by the upper
`
`protocol layers (Ronciak, 22 in figure 1 )(see, Ronciak, paragraph [0021 ]). Ronciak does
`
`not explicitly teach the requesting signal or checking whether data is waiting in the
`
`buffer. The details of Ronciak's deficiency of requesting signal is taught by Goto and the
`
`deficiency of checking availability is taught by Reeves as presented above in claim 1.
`
`Conclusion
`
`11.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
`
`12.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Jeong S. Park whose telephone number is (571 )270-
`
`1597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:30
`
`EST.
`
`012
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 11/916,973
`Art Unit: 2454
`
`Page 12
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Joseph E. Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/Jeong S Park/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
`
`February 28, 2013
`
`013