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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, the new ground of rejection further relied upon Chen et al. (US 20180234289 A1). As described in FIG. 1 and 18, Chen teaches first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service (¶0086, Primary Control Board PB 110) and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service (¶0086, Secondary Control Board SB 120) to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; (¶0086, providing high availability of the routing management services) and receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node. (FIG. 18, ¶0167, when the primary board fails the secondary board becomes the new primary board in providing rouging management services)
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itskin et al. (US 20160285913 A1) in view of Suryanarayana et al. (US 10200274 B1), Subramani et al. (US 20180316551 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20180234289 A1).
Claim 1 Itskin teaches a method comprising:
establishing, by a workload executable by one or more processors, based at least in part on a first zone identifier, a first routing session (FIG. 3, steps 305, 340, and 315, ¶0037, based on zone identifiers, for example Company ABC, ¶0038 or ¶0040, establishing a routing session via an external switch or an internal switch) with a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes (FIG. 2, ¶0031, wherein L1 is a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes L1, L2, L4 and L7 in the form of virtual machines, wherein a virtual machine comprises a control node) the first zone identifier identifying the first plurality of control nodes; (¶0031, Company ABC identifies the first plurality of control nodes) and
establishing, by the workload, based at least in part on a second zone identifier, a second routing session (FIG. 3, steps 305, 340, and 315, ¶0037, based on zone identifiers, for example Company 123, ¶0038 or ¶0040, establishing a routing session via an external switch or an internal switch) with a second control node of a first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0031, wherein L3 is a first control node of a second plurality of control nodes L3 and L9 in the form of virtual machines, wherein a virtual machines comprises a control node) the second zone identifier identifying the second plurality of control nodes, and the second zone identifier being different than the first zone identifier, (¶0031, Company 123 identifies the second plurality of control nodes)
However, Itskin does not explicitly teach wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service,
wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes;
wherein the first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node.
From a related technology, Suryanarayana teaches a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller. (FIG. 4, Col. 13, Line 65-Col 14, Line 3, a control node being a plurality of control nodes of an SDN controller, Col. 12, Lines 31-51, Examiner interprets a control node as being not long the physical control nodes 54, but also the virtual elements (such as virtual agents 36 and virtual machines 48) as the control nodes in combination with these elements implement the control node functions of ensuring that the network state is consistent with desired state as specified by orchestration engine 30)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin that incorporate control node elements executed as virtual machines with the teachings of Suryanarayana that utilized both physical control node elements and virtual elements to implement control node functions in order to better utilize resources wherein a SDN platform has control of a virtualized network and avoid degradation of cloud based services. (Suryanarayana, Col. 1, Lines 30-42)
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana does not explicitly teach wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes;
wherein the first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node.
From a related technology, Subramani teaches wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller (¶0136, wherein the network comprises a software defined network) configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, (¶0034, ¶0093, wherein there are primary and secondary providers for a routing management service) wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes. (FIG. 1, Secondary Services 104, ¶0046, wherein the hardware that executes the secondary services is different from the rest of the hardware executing the primary services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin that incorporate the primary/secondary providers for services as taught by Subramani in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani does not explicitly teach wherein the first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node.
From a related technology, Chen teaches first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Primary Control Board PB 110) and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Secondary Control Board SB 120) to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; (¶0086, providing high availability of the routing functions, i.e. routing management services) and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node. (FIG. 18, ¶0167, when the primary board fails the secondary board becomes the new primary board in providing rouging management services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani to incorporate the high availability techniques used in Chen in order to more efficiently utilize network resources.
Claim 2 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the workload comprises a virtual machine, (Itskin, ¶0029, wherein the workload comprises a virtual machine 205) wherein the first routing session is associated with a first Internet Protocol (IP) address of the virtual machine, (Itskin, ¶0032, the first routing session associated with a first IP address of the virtual machine) and wherein the second routing session is associated with a second IP address of the virtual machine. (Itskin, ¶0033, the second routing session associated with a second IP address of the virtual machine)
Claim 8 Itskin teaches a Software Defined Networking (SDN) system comprising:
a first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0030, wherein L1 is a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes L1, L2 and L3) the first plurality of control nodes assigned a first zone identifier; (¶0034, node being assigned to a zone identifier)
a second plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0033, wherein L4 is a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes L4 and L5) the second plurality of control nodes assigned a second zone identifier, (¶0034, node being assigned to a zone identifier)
wherein the second zone identifier is different than the first zone identifier, (¶0033-¶0034, wherein zone identifiers are different)
wherein one or more virtual or physical machines execute the first plurality of control nodes, and wherein one or more second virtual or physical machines executing the second plurality of control nodes, the one or more virtual or physical machines different than the one or more first virtual or physical machines. (See 112(b), rejection, the virtual or physical machines are not part of the claimed method and therefore do not provide further limitations on the claims)
a compute node hosting a workload configured to:
establish, based at least in part on the first zone identifier, a first routing session with a first control node of the first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 3, steps 305, 340, and 315, ¶0037, based on zone identifiers, ¶0038 or ¶0040, establishing a routing session via an external switch or an internal switch) and
establish, based at least in part on the second zone identifier, a second routing session with a second control node of the first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0031, wherein a first zone identifier identifies the first plurality of control nodes L1, L2, and L3) the second control node being configured as redundant to the first control node. ()
However, Itskin does not explicitly teach wherein the control nodes are of an SDN controller.
From a related technology, Suryanarayana teaches control nodes are of an SDN controller. (FIG. 4, Col. 13, Line 65-Col 14, Line 3, a control node being a plurality of control nodes of an SDN controller)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin to incorporate the SDN techniques applied in the teachings of Suryanarayana to more effectively utilize network resources.
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana does not explicitly teach wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes.
From a related technology, Subramani teaches wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller (¶0136, wherein the network comprises a software defined network) configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, (¶0034, ¶0093, wherein there are primary and secondary providers for a routing management service) wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes. (FIG. 1, Secondary Services 104, ¶0046, wherein the hardware that executes the secondary services is different from the rest of the hardware executing the primary services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin that incorporate the primary/secondary providers for services as taught by Subramani in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani does not explicitly teach wherein the first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node.
From a related technology, Chen teaches first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Primary Control Board PB 110) and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Secondary Control Board SB 120) to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; (¶0086, providing high availability of the routing functions, i.e. routing management services) and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node. (FIG. 18, ¶0167, when the primary board fails the secondary board becomes the new primary board in providing rouging management services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani to incorporate the high availability techniques used in Chen in order to more efficiently utilize network resources.
Claim 9 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen as described for Claim 2.
Claim 17 Itskin teaches a method comprising:
establishing, by a virtual router of a compute node (¶0030, wherein the manage system, i.e. the compute node, use virtual adapters for routing network traffic) based at least in part on a first zone identifier, a first communication session (FIG. 3, steps 305, 340, and 315, ¶0037, based on zone identifiers, ¶0038 or ¶0040, establishing a routing session via an external switch or an internal switch) with a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0030, wherein L1 is a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes L1, L2 and L3) the first zone identifier identifying the first plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0031, wherein a first zone identifier identifies the first plurality of control nodes L1, L2, and L3) wherein the virtual router is configured to provide a first virtual network to a workload; (Examiner notes that the virtual router is only “configured to provide,” and as such “providing” is merely an intended use of the configuration of the virtual router)
establishing, by the virtual router based at least in part on a second zone identifier, a second communication session FIG. 3, steps 305, 340, and 315, ¶0037, based on zone identifiers, ¶0038 or ¶0040, establishing a routing session via an external switch or an internal switch) with a second control node of a second plurality of control nodes, (FIG. 2, ¶0033, wherein L4 is a first control node of a first plurality of control nodes L4 and L5)
the second zone identifier identifying the second plurality of control nodes, the second zone identifier different than the first zone identifier, (¶0033-¶0034, wherein zone identifiers are different) wherein the first plurality of control nodes are on different virtual or physical machines from the second plurality of control nodes. (FIG. 2, ¶0029, wherein each plurality of control nodes are on different managed systems)
However, Itskin does not explicitly teach wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller.
From a related technology, Suryanarayana teaches a first control node is a control node of a first plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller, and a second control node is a control node of a second plurality of control nodes of the SDN controller. (FIG. 4, Col. 13, Line 65-Col 14, Line 3, control nodes being of a plurality of control nodes of an SDN controller)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin to incorporate the SDN techniques applied in the teachings of Suryanarayana to more effectively utilize network resources.
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana does not explicitly teach wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes.
From a related technology, Subramani teaches wherein the control node is a control node of a plurality of control nodes of a Software-Defined Networking (SDN) controller (¶0136, wherein the network comprises a software defined network) configured as a primary or a secondary provider of a routing management service, (¶0034, ¶0093, wherein there are primary and secondary providers for a routing management service) wherein the first plurality of control nodes are executed by physical hardware that is different from physical hardware that executes the second plurality of control nodes. (FIG. 1, Secondary Services 104, ¶0046, wherein the hardware that executes the secondary services is different from the rest of the hardware executing the primary services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin that incorporate the primary/secondary providers for services as taught by Subramani in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
However, Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani does not explicitly teach wherein the first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node.
From a related technology, Chen teaches first control node is configured as a primary provider of a routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Primary Control Board PB 110) and the second control node is configured as a secondary provider of the routing management service (FIG. 1A, ¶0086, Secondary Control Board SB 120) to provide high availability of the routing management service to the workload; (¶0086, providing high availability of the routing functions, i.e. routing management services) and
receiving, by the workload, the routing management service from the second control node via the second routing session after a failure of the first control node. (FIG. 18, ¶0167, when the primary board fails the secondary board becomes the new primary board in providing rouging management services)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin in view of Suryanarayana and Subramani to incorporate the high availability techniques used in Chen in order to more efficiently utilize network resources.
Claim 18 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen i as described by Claim 2.
3. Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itskin et al. (US 20160285913 A1) in view of Suryanarayana et al. (US 10200274 B1), Subramani et al. (US 20180316551 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20180234289 A1) and in further view of Ould-Brahim (US 20080170573 A1).
Claim 3 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach, wherein establishing the first routing session comprises establishing a first Border Gateway Protocol as a Service (BGPaaS) routing session, and wherein establishing the second routing session comprises establishing a second BGPaaS routing session.
From a related technology, Ould-Brahim establishing a first Border Gateway Protocol as a Service (BGPaaS) routing session. (¶0032, establishing routing sessions with BGPaaS)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Itskin to incorporate techniques such as BGPaaS as described in Ould-Brahim in order to utilize tools known to be effective at managing network resources and services.
Claim 4 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Ould-Brahim teaches Claim 3, and further teaches wherein the first zone identifier comprises an attribute of a first BGPaaS configuration on the workload, and wherein the first zone identifier is determined from the first BGPaaS configuration to establish the first BGPaaS session; (Ould-Brahim, ¶0033, wherein the identifier comprises an attribute of the configuration and utilized to establish the BGPaaS Session) and wherein the second zone identifier comprises an attribute of a second BGPaaS configuration on the workload, and wherein the second zone identifier is determined from the second BGPaaS configuration to establish the second BGPaaS session. (Ould-Brahim, ¶0033, wherein the identifier comprises an attribute of the configuration and utilized to establish the BGPaaS Session)
Claims 10-11 are taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Ould-Brahim as described for Claims 3-4.
4. Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itskin et al. (US 20160285913 A1) in view of Suryanarayana et al. (US 10200274 B1) and Subramani et al. (US 20180316551 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20180234289 A1) and in further view of Timmons et al. (US 20190253341 A1).
Claim 5 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach assigning the first zone identifier as an attribute of the first control node and communicating the first zone identifier to the workload; and
assigning the second zone identifier as an attribute of the second control node and communicating the second zone identifier to the workload.
From a related technology, Timmons teaches assigning the first zone identifier as an attribute of the first control node and communicating the first zone identifier to the workload; (Timmons, ¶0061-¶0082, forming a routing session based on information relating to a service, FIG. 7. wherein the service information comprises a zone identifier) and
assigning the second zone identifier as an attribute of the second control node and communicating the second zone identifier to the workload. (Timmons, ¶0061-¶0082, forming a routing session based on information relating to a service, FIG. 7. wherein the service information comprises a zone identifier)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin and Suryanarayana to incorporate the routing techniques taught by Timmons in order to better manage zone identifier data to efficiently utilized network resources.
Claim 6 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the workload comprises a first workload, wherein the method further comprises:
requesting, by a second workload, a third routing session, the third routing session associated with the first zone identifier; selecting, based on load balancing the first plurality of control nodes, a third control node of the first plurality control nodes; and establishing the third routing session with the third control node.
From a related technology, Timmons teaches wherein the workload comprises a first workload, (Timmons, FIG. 1, ¶0046)
wherein the method further comprises:
requesting, by a second workload, a third routing session, the third routing session associated with the first zone identifier; selecting, based on load balancing the first plurality of control nodes, a third control node of the first plurality control nodes; (Timmons, ¶0062, requesting an additional routing session) and
establishing the third routing session with the third control node. (Timmons, ¶0007, establishing a routing session; FIG. 6, steps 600 and 608, ¶0061-¶0082, forming a routing session based on information relating to a service, FIG. 7. ¶0067, wherein the service information comprises a zone identifier)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin and Suryanarayana to incorporate the routing techniques taught by Timmons in order to better manage zone identifier data to efficiently utilized network resources.
Claim 7 Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach based at least in part on a failure of the first control node, migrating a routing management service from the first control node to the second control node.
From a related technology, Timmons teaches based at least in part on a failure of the first control node, migrating a routing management service from the first control node to the second control node. (Timmons, ¶0044, migrating packets to different nodes when there is a link failure detected)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Itskin and Suryanarayana to incorporate the routing techniques taught by Timmons in order to better manage zone identifier data to efficiently utilized network resources.
Claim 12 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Timmons as described for Claim 5.
Claim 13 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Timmons as described for Claim 6.
Claim 14 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Timmons as described for Claim 7.
Claim 15 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Timmons as described for Claim 6.
Claim 20 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Timmons as described for Claim 5.
5. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itskin et al. (US 20160285913 A1) in view of Suryanarayana et al. (US 10200274 B1) and Subramani et al. (US 20180316551 A1), and Chen et al. (US 20180234289 A1) and in further view of Ansari et al. (US 20150074259 A1)
Claim 16 Itskin and Suryanarayana, Subramani, and Chen teaches Claim 15, but does not explicitly teach, wherein the third communication session comprises a first eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) session and wherein the fourth communication session comprises a second XMPP session.
From a related technology, Ansari teaches wherein a communication session comprises a eXtensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) session. (¶0251-¶0251, wherein communication session are established using XMPP)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Itskin and Suryanarayana and Subramani to incorporate techniques such as XMPP as described in Ansariin order to utilize tools known to be effective at managing network resources and services.
Claim 19 is taught by Itskin in view of Suryanarayana, Subramani, Chen and Ansari as described by Claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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 at (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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453