DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sever” should be “server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
5. Claim 9 recites the phrase “wherein each CCP server configures a different plurality of host computers”. It is unclear what is meant by configuring a plurality of host computers and renders the claim indefinite.
6. Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
7. Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
8. Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to methods, claims 16-20 are directed to a machine and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 16: The limitations of determining whether a second data message from a second host computer notifying that the particular machine has been added to the second host computer has been received and processed by the CCP, in order to process the first data message; and when it is determined that the second data message has been received and processed, processing the first data message, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing , under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, in a conversation, a person can receive a message about an item that has been moved from a first location and keep it in memory or on a table using pen and paper. Upon receiving a second message from a second location stating that the asset is now available at the second location, said person can mentally create a connection to the first message in order to update a table that keeps track of where an asset is at any given time.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 16 recites judicial exceptions.
The claim has been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – processing control plane messages regarding migration of a particular machine from a first host computer managed by a first central control plane (CCP) server to a second host computer, the first CCP server part of a CCP cluster of two or more servers which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claim recite receiving a first data message from the first host computer notifying that the particular machine has been removed from the first host computer which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Examiner notes that these elements held to be merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data storage will be addressed below in Step 2B as further being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 16 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than field of use/technological environment as well as insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data storage which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering is also WURC, see at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” wherein receiving information as claimed is receiving data over a network is data gathering as it corresponds with consulting and updating a log (see analysis in Step 2A Prong 2 above). The sending information as in claim 1 being data transmission. Further still, the insignificant extra-solution data storage is also WURC, see at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” wherein saving transactions in memory as claimed is storing information in memory.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 2-4, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of when it is determined that the second data message has not been received and processed, waiting a particular period of time in order to process the first data message after the second data message has been received and processed, when the second data message has been received and processed during the particular period of time, processing the first data message, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe the length of time it takes to receive a letter from a delivery service with an expected delivery date. When said letter was not received by the delivery date, a person can wait a set period of time before sending a follow up message with the delivery service. If the letter is not received after waiting a set period of time, a person can further send a message to the delivery service about the late delivery which corresponds to sending an error notification to an administrator. Further, the claims recite and when the second data message has not been received and processed during the particular period of time, sending an error notification to an administrator notifying of a potential problem regarding the migration of the machine wherein the particular period of time is specified by the administrator which is merely insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Hence, the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 2-4 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 5, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of receiving a third data message from the first host computer, before receiving the first data message, notifying of the migration of the particular machine from the first host computer to the second host computer which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claims 6-7, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of the first CCP server receives one or more middlebox service rules to be applied at a plurality of machines, including the particular machine, executing on a plurality of host computers including the first and second host computers, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity very similar to that of claim 1. Further, claims 6-7 recite the middlebox service rules specify different security groups comprising one or more of the plurality of machines, is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of identifying a category based on data such as selecting a particular data source. Therefore, claims 6-7 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claims 8, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of after processing the first data message, sending a fourth data message to the first host computer specifying one or more updates to one or more of the security groups, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data transmission activity. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 9, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of wherein each CCP server configures a different plurality of host computers, which is merely a recitation of a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claims 10-12, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of wherein the second data message is received and processed at the first CCP server, wherein the second data message is received and processed at a second CCP sever, and wherein each CCP server retrieves the middlebox service rules from a shared database, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering and data transmission activity. Therefore, claims 10-12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 13, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of each CCP server uses the shared database to store and retrieve (i) the middlebox service rules, (ii) machine virtual network interface card (vNIC) to logical switch port mappings for the plurality of machines and a logical switch associated with the plurality of host computers, and (iii) host computer and machine statuses for the plurality of host computers and the plurality of machines, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 14, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of the host computer and machine statuses specify which machines are currently operating on which host computers, which is merely insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity of obtaining information about machine statuses. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 15, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of the first CCP server updates the machine vNIC to logical switch port mappings and the host computer and machine statuses for the particular machine and the first host computer after processing the first data message, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (E.g. updating a database or table). Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 17, it recites very similar limitations to that of claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the same rationale.
With regards to claim 18, it recites very similar limitations to that of claim 5. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the same rationale.
With regards to claim 19, it recites very similar limitations to that of claim 6. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the same rationale.
With regards to claim 20, it recites very similar limitations to that of claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namihara (US 10,044,558 B2) in view of Nakagawa (US 8,990,808 B2).
11. Regarding claim 1, Namihara discloses a method for processing control plane messages regarding migration of a particular machine from a first host computer managed by a first central control plane (CCP) server to a second host computer (Col. 3, lines 17-23: “The VMM on the CPU server 11 (First host computer) transmits a DE-ASSOC message of VDP to the switch blade 20 (S117). The switch blade 20 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received DE-ASSOC message). the first CCP server part of a CCP cluster of two or more servers (Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and Col. 2, lines 24-29: “The external switch 60 (First CCP server) is connected to a switch blade in each blade server, and is a data relay apparatus such as a layer 2 switch that controls communication between blade servers. For example, the external switch 60 has the same function as the switch blades 20 and 50, and relays data exchanged between the switch blades 20 and 50” and Col. 3, lines 24-29: “The external switch 60 which is a transfer destination of the message identifies a port profile corresponding to the VSIID included in the DE-ASSOC message from the VSI table”.), the method comprising:
at the first CCP server: receiving a first data message from the first host computer notifying that the particular machine has been removed from the first host computer (Col. 3, lines 17-23: “The VMM on the CPU server 11 (First host computer) transmits a DE-ASSOC message of VDP to the switch blade 20 (S117). The switch blade 20 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received DE-ASSOC message, and transfers the received DE-ASSOC message to the external switch 60 (First CCP server)” and Col. 1, lines 38-40: “A notification (DE-ASSOC message) to notify deletion of a profile due to disappearance of a VM from an interface of a migration source server of the VM”);
determining whether a second data message from a second host computer notifying that the particular machine has been added to the second host computer has been received and processed by the CCP, in order to process the first data message (Col. 3, lines 5-11: “The switch blade 50 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received ASSOC message, and transfers the received ASSOC message to the external switch 60 (S113). The external switch 60 (First CCP server) which is a transfer destination of the message updates a VSI table corresponding to the VSIID included in the ASSOC message, and applies a port profile (S114)” and Col. 1, lines 40-43: “a notification (ASSOC message) to notify registration of the profile due to activation of the VM from an interface of a migration destination server of the VM”. The updating corresponds to the processing of the second message.);
and when it is determined that the second data message has been received and processed, processing the first data message (Col. 3, lines 19-23: “The switch blade 20 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received DE-ASSOC message, and transfers the received DE-ASSOC message to the external switch 60 (First CCP server)”and Col. 9, lines 1-2: “When a DE-ASSOC message is received, a deletion timer is set”. Setting the deletion timer corresponds to the processing of the first message.).
Namihara does not explicitly teach the first CCP server to be part of a CCP cluster of two or more servers.
However, Nakagawa teaches the first CCP server to be part of a CCP cluster of two or more servers (Col. 5, lines 12-19: “The information processing system includes a plurality of switches 1 to 5 (CCP cluster of two or more servers), a plurality of servers 11 to 14, and a management server 10. Here, the switches 1 to 3 are connected with the servers 11 to 14, and are lower-level switches. In the example illustrated in FIG. 1, the switch 1 is connected with the server 11 and the server 12, the switch 2 is connected with the server 13, and the switch 3 is connected with the server 14.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the invention of Namihara such that the first CCP server is a part of a CCP cluster of two or more servers to increase the communication band between host computers as taught by Nakagawa (Col. 5, lines 23-25: “The information processing system adopts a multipath technique in which a plurality of communication paths are presented among the servers 11 to 14 (Host computers)” and Col. 2, lines 28-30: “A multipath technique has been known that increases a communication band between servers by connecting a plurality of paths between servers”).
12. Regarding claim 2, Namihara further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising, when it is determined that the second data message has not been received and processed, waiting a particular period of time in order to process the first data message after the second data message has been received and processed (Col. 14, lines 4-8: “Because there's a possibility that the ARP frame has arrived at another switch including a port of the same MLAG channel, the port profile is not immediately deleted, and the switch 6 waits arrival of the registration notification (Second data message) for a predetermined time period.”).
13. Regarding claim 5, Namihara further discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising receiving a third data message from the first host computer, before receiving the first data message, notifying of the migration of the particular machine from the first host computer to the second host computer (Fig. 2 and Col. 2, lines 40-43: “In such a state, as illustrated in FIG. 2, when the VMM on the CPU server 41 (Second host computer) accepts an instruction operation from an administrator or the like, it generates a new VM on the own server (S101)”. The instruction operation is sent from the first host computer to initiate live migration.).
14. Regarding claim 16, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale. Further the additional limitations non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program for execution by at least one processing unit are taught by Namihara (Col. 16, lines 48-53: “Incidentally, it is possible to create a program causing a processor to execute the aforementioned processing, and such a program is stored in a computer readable storage medium or storage device such as a flexible disk, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, magneto-optic disk, a semiconductor memory, and hard disk. In addition, the intermediate processing result is temporarily stored in a storage device such as a RAM or the like.”).
15. Regarding claim 18, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
16. Claims 3-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namihara and Nakagawa, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Duong et al. (US 11,169,835 B1).
17. Regarding claim 3, Namihara discloses the method of claim 2, wherein: when the second data message has been received and processed during the particular period of time, processing the first data message (Col. 3, lines 19-23: “The switch blade 20 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received DE-ASSOC message, and transfers the received DE-ASSOC message to the external switch 60 (S118)”and Col. 9, lines 1-2: “When a DE-ASSOC message is received, a deletion timer is set”. Setting the deletion timer corresponds to the processing of the first message.).
But, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose and when the second data message has not been received and processed during the particular period of time, sending an error notification to an administrator notifying of a potential problem regarding the migration of the machine.
However, Duong et al. teaches when a data message has not been received and processed during the particular period of time, sending an error notification to an administrator notifying of a potential problem regarding the migration of the machine (Col. 6, lines 4-8: “Messages relating to migration such as progression, successful completion, errors, failures, and the like can be provided via the user interface. In some embodiments, the progress is interactive and displayed in response to a user request” and Col. 17, lines 40-49: “Errors may occur during offloading. Errors such as a snapshot being unavailable on a destination device, a snapshot replication channel (authenticated channel) being unavailable, authentication being incomplete, disconnects between source and destination devices, data being written to migration offloaded files of a source VM after the snapshot was taken on the source device, VAAI operation time outs (e.g., communication with a source device or cloning of replicated snapshot took longer than VAAI timeout) can be addressed by dishonoring the offload operation.” Once a migration task fails or there is a timeout error, there will be an error notification sent to an administrator/user via the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to include an error message when the second data message has not been received and processed during the particular period of time in the invention of Namihara and Nakagawa to properly notify a user or provide feedback to any issues during live migration as taught by Duong et al. (Col. 5, lines 62-63: “User interface 304 may be configured to provide feedback and receive instructions from a user”).
18. Regarding claim 4, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the particular period of time is specified by the administrator. However, Duong et al. teaches the particular period of time is specified by the administrator (Col. 9, lines 36-38: “The VM load balancing server may indicate an error or retry for N hours (particular period of time) before it fails the migration task, where N is a user-configurable time frame (specified by the administrator)”).
19. Regarding claim 17, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
20. Claims 6-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namihara and Nakagawa, as applied to claim 5, in further view of Bansal et al. (US 9,215,214 B2).
21. Regarding claim 6, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the first CCP server receives one or more middlebox service rules to be applied at a plurality of machines, including the particular machine, executing on a plurality of host computers including the first and second host computers.
However, Bansal et al. discloses wherein the first CCP server receives one or more middlebox service rules to be applied at a plurality of machines (Col. 3, lines 1-4: “In some embodiments, the network nodes (First CCP server) that receive the AppliedTo firewall rules (Middlebox service rules) specify, based on the received AppliedTo firewall rules, one or more firewall rule tables for one or more data end nodes (e.g., VMs, VNICs, machines, or other network elements) that connect to the nodes”. Firewalls are considered to be a type of middlebox service.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the invention of Namihara and Nakagawa such that the first CCP server receives one or more middlebox service rules to be applied at a plurality of machines, including the particular machine, executing on a plurality of host computers including the first and second host computers to enforce security policies or provide security for intra-VM traffic as taught by Bansal (Col. 1, lines 26-29: “VNIC-level firewalls, on the other hand, enforce security policies as soon as packet comes out of the VM's VNIC. Hence, they can provide security for intra-VM traffic.”).
22. Regarding claim 7, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the middlebox service rules specify different security groups comprising one or more of the plurality of machines. However, Bansal et al. teaches the middlebox service rules specify different security groups comprising one or more of the plurality of machines (Col. 6, lines 6-18: “The AppliedTo identifier specifies the set of enforcement points at which the firewall rule has to be applied. In some embodiments, the enforcement points can be defined in terms of (1) VNICs, VMs, hosts, or other compute constructs (e.g., compute clusters, datacenters, etc.), (2) network elements, such as physical forwarding elements (e.g., physical switches, physical routers, etc.), logical forwarding elements (e.g., logical switches, logical routers, etc.), other managed appliances, unmanaged third-party appliances (e.g., third party firewalls), and/or combination of such elements, and/or (3) security groups that are formed by a set of one or more VNICs, VMs, hosts, compute constructs and/or network constructs.”)
23. Regarding claim 8, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7 further comprising: after processing the first data message, sending a fourth data message to the first host computer specifying one or more updates to one or more of the security groups. However, Bansal teaches sending a fourth data message to the first host computer specifying one or more updates to one or more of the security groups (Col. 2, lines 46-50: “The method also sends a firewall rule to a new firewall-enforcing device, or removes a firewall rule from a firewall-enforcing device, when the membership change to a dynamic container requires the addition or removal of a firewall-enforcing device”. A host computer can be considered a firewall-enforcing device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify the invention of Namihara and Nakagawa such that after processing the first data message, sending a fourth data message to the first host computer specifying one or more updates to one or more of the security groups to dynamically adjust security policies in response to the addition or removal of a VM as taught by Bansal (Col. 2, lines 13-23: “One or more of the compute constructs, network constructs and security constructs can be specified as dynamic containers that can have members (e.g., forwarding elements, hosts, VNICs, etc.) dynamically added and/or removed from them. As the AppliedTo tuples of the firewall rules can refer to such dynamically modifiable constructs, the application of the AppliedTo firewall rules (i.e., rules that are specified to include an AppliedTo tuple) can be dynamically adjusted for different locations within a network by dynamically adjusting the membership of these modifiable constructs.”).
24. Regarding claim 9, Namihara discloses the method of claim 6, wherein each CCP server configures a different plurality of host computers (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 24-27: “.The external switch 60 (CCP server) is connected to a switch blade in each blade server, and is a data relay apparatus such as a layer 2 switch that controls communication between blade servers (host computers)”. Controlling communication is interpreted to be the configuring a different plurality of host computers.)
25. Regarding claim 10, Namihara discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second data message is received and processed at the first CCP server (Col. 3, lines 5-11: “The switch blade 50 determines that the VM migrates over blade servers based on a VSIID included in the received ASSOC message, and transfers the received ASSOC message to the external switch 60 (S113). The external switch 60 (First CCP server) which is a transfer destination of the message updates a VSI table corresponding to the VSIID included in the ASSOC message, and applies a port profile (S114)” and Col. 1, lines 40-43: “a notification (ASSOC message) to notify registration of the profile due to activation of the VM from an interface of a migration destination server of the VM”. The updating corresponds to the processing of the second message.).
26. Regarding claim 11, Namihara does not explicitly teach the method of claim 9, wherein the second data message is received and processed at a second CCP server.
However, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second data message is received and processed at a second CCP server (Col.11, lines 10-18: “Each of the switches 1 to 5 (CCP servers) executes the profile setting process or the profile deletion process within its own device when live migration of a VM is performed between itself and a server connected to itself. Further, each of the switches 1 to 5 transfers each message to an upper-level switch which is at a level higher than itself in the communication path represented by the path ID included in each message when it is determined that live migration of a VM involves itself”; Fig. 22 and Col. 32, lines 47-60: “ When the stop and copy process starts, the server 53 transmits the ASSOC message (Second data message) to the switch 42 (Second CCP Server) of the upper level which is at a level higher than itself in a path up to the switch 44 (First CCP Server) which is the uplink after change of the pin group B, similarly to the ASSOC message (step S715). In this case, the destination switch 42 transfers the ASSOC message to the switch 44 which is the uplink after change of the pin group B (step S716). Further, when the ASSOC message is received, the switch 44 applies the port profile acquired in step S708 (step S717) (Processing at the first CCP server), and then transmits the ASSOC-CONF message to the switch 42 (step S718). When the ASSOC-CONF message is received from the switch 44, the switch 42 (Second CCP server) applies the port profile acquired in step S706 (step S719) (Processing at the second CCP server)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify the invention of Namihara such that the second data message is received and processed at a second CCP server in order to enable a system to automatically set the port profiles of switches connected at multiple levels as taught by Nakagawa (Col. 3, lines 4-12: “However, the messages of the VSI discovery protocol are not transmitted to the switch 34 and the switch 35 of the upper level which relay communication between switches. For this reason, in the system 30, it is difficult to automatically set the port profiles of the switch 34 and the switch 35. According to an aspect of the present invention, a port profile can be automatically set to switches connected at multiple levels”).
27. Regarding claim 12, Namihara discloses a shared database (Fig. 1 and Col. 1, lines 54-58: “The port profile DB server 5 (Shared database) stores system requirements for VMs in association with VMs operating on each blade server. For example, the port profile DB server 5 stores information on a VLAN, QoS, bandwidth that has been allocated and the like for a VM”).
But, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 9, wherein each CCP server retrieves the middlebox service rules from a shared database.
However, Bansal teaches retrieving the middlebox service rules from a shared database (Col. 13, lines 7-8: “From the rule data storage 320 (Shared database), the translation engine 510 retrieves the AppliedTo firewall rules (Middlebox service rules)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify the invention of Namihara and Nakagawa such that each CCP server retrieves the middlebox service rules from a shared database to ensure all host computers will receive the same updates when there has been a change to a security rule as taught by Bansal (Col. 15, lines 40-44: “The distribution engine 545 of the publishing engine 515 pushes to each firewall-enforcing device (Host computer) (through a network) the firewall rules that are stored in the data storage (Shared database) that the rule extractor maintains for the firewall-enforcing device.” And Col. 15, lines 50-53: “the publishing engine distributes to the firewall-enforcing devices updates to AppliedTo enforcement point sets when a user or an automated process dynamically modifies such sets”).
28. Regarding claim 13, Namihara and Nakagawa do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 12, wherein each CCP server uses the shared database to store and retrieve (i) the middlebox service rules, (ii) machine virtual network interface card (vNIC) to logical switch port mappings for the plurality of machines and a logical switch associated with the plurality of host computers, and (iii) host computer and machine statuses for the plurality of host computers and the plurality of machines. However, Nakagawa teaches using the shared database to store and retrieve (ii) machine virtual network interface card (vNIC) to logical switch port mappings for the plurality of machines and a logical switch associated with the plurality of host computers, and (iii) host computer and machine statuses for the plurality of host computers and the plurality of machines (Col. 13, lines 40-50: “The port profile table 17 (Shared database) is a storage unit that caches information acquired from the management server 10. Information stored in the port profile table 17 is stored or deleted by the executing unit 24 which will be described later. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of information stored in the port profile table. As illustrated in FIG. 8, the port profile table 17 stores "1, VLAN100, 50 MB," "2, VLAN200, 100 MB," and the like as "port profile ID, VLAN, band information." Information stored in the port profile table 17 is not limited to information illustrated in FIG. 8 and can be arbitrarily added or deleted” and Col. 8, lines 52-56: “The management server 10 is a server that manages each of the switches 1 to 5 and each of the servers 11 to 14. For example, the management server 10 is connected with each of the switches 1 to 5 and each of the servers 11 to 14 through a management network indicated by a dotted line in FIG. 1”. vNIC to logical switch port mappings and host computer and machine statuses can be retrieved from management server 10 since this information is used during live migration.) and Bansal teaches using the shared database to store and retrieve (i) the middlebox service rules from a shared database (Col. 13, lines 7-8: “From the rule data storage 320 (Shared database), the translation engine 510 retrieves the AppliedTo firewall rules (Middlebox service rules)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify the invention of Namihara and Nakagawa such that each CCP server uses the shared database to store and retrieve (i) the middlebox service rules, (ii) machine virtual network interface card (vNIC) to logical switch port mappings for the plurality of machines and a logical switch associated with the plurality of host computers, and (iii) host computer and machine statuses for the plurality of host computers and the plurality of machines to ensure all switches and host computers will receive the same updates in the event of a change to any data stored within the shared database as taught by Bansal (Col. 15, lines 50-53: “the publishing engine distributes to the firewall-enforcing devices updates to AppliedTo enforcement point sets when a user or an automated process dynamically modifies such sets”. The distributed updates to each device are the same as a result of using a shared database.).
29. Regarding claim 14, Namihara does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the host computer and machine statuses specify which machines are currently operating on which host computers. However, Nakagawa teaches the host computer and machine statuses specify which machines are currently operating on which host computers (Col. 13, lines 40-50: “The port profile table 17 (Shared database) is a storage unit that caches information acquired from the management server 10. Information stored in the port profile table 17 is stored or deleted by the executing unit 24 which will be described later. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of information stored in the port profile table. As illustrated in FIG. 8, the port profile table 17 stores "1, VLAN100, 50 MB," "2, VLAN200, 100 MB," and the like as "port profile ID, VLAN, band information." Information stored in the port profile table 17 is not limited to information illustrated in FIG. 8 and can be arbitrarily added or deleted”. The machine statuses and host computer information is used by the management server to calculate communication paths.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to further modify the invention of Namihara such that the host computer and machine statuses specify which machines are currently operating on which host computers to enable a management server to calculate an optimal communication path between VMs as taught by Nakagawa (Col. 9, lines 9-14: “ Further, when the VM is moved, the management server 10 recalculates an optimal communication path in which communication among the VMs #1 to #4 is relayed, and then calculates port profile information for applying a new port profile to each of the switches 1 to 5 based on a calculation result.”)
30. Regarding claim 15, Namihara discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the first CCP server updates the machine vNIC to logical switch port mappings and the host computer and machine statuses for the particular machine and the first host computer after processing the first data message (Fig. 13 and Col. 10, lines 19-24: “When the time of the deletion timer has reached 0, the application release processing unit 114 sets for an application destination port through, for example, the switch hardware 130 so that application of the port profile of the pertinent entry is released (step S59). The application destination port can be easily identified if the application destination port number is registered in a row of the presence or absence of port application. The release of application is performed by, for example, deleting data of the port profile. Then, the processing shifts to the step S61.”).
31. Regarding claim 19, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
32. Regarding claim 20, it is a media/product type claim having similar limitations as claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD J LI whose telephone number is (571)272-7695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Joe Kudirka can be reached on (571) 270-7126. 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 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.
/EDWARD JIANDE LI/Examiner, Art Unit 4167
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195