DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21, 23-26, 28, 29, 33, 35-38, 40 have been amended.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanda et al (US20170034053 herein after Chanda) in view of Menon et al. (US20170346709).
Regarding claim 21, Chanda teaches A method for providing a stateful service on data messages (Fig 4 “420”, “Logical Router 415”, “LS1 405”, [0086] “SRs may deliver services (i.e., functionalities beyond simply routing, such as NAT, firewall, load balancing, etc.) and provide the connection between the logical network and external physical networks”) sent from a first gateway device of a first network to a second gateway device of a second network (Fig. 11 “L1”, “L2”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”),
the method comprising: configuring a network edge device (Fig. 10 “LR”, Service Router 1”, “Service Router 2”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”), that is deployed between the first and second gateway devices, to implement a logical switch to connect pairs of associated interfaces of the first and second gateway devices (Fig. 4 “L1”, L2”, [0077] “The logical router 415 has an interface L1 to the first logical switch 405”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”, Fig. 4 “U1”, U2”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2);
configuring the logical switch to forward to one or more service engines ([0071] “any stateful services (e.g., firewalls) are configured on the logical router”, Fig 2 “Service Router 1” “Service Router 2”, [0060] “The MFEs of some embodiments perform first-hop switching for the logical switches 105 and 110 for packets sent by the VMs of the logical network 100 (unless the pipeline of the transit logical switch 210 of the MFE specifies to send the packet to a SR). The MFEs 315 (or a subset of them) may also implement logical switches (and distributed logical routers) for other logical networks”), data message flows that pass between the first and second gateways through the logical switch (Fig. 4 “L1”, L2”, [0077] “The logical router 415 has an interface L1 to the first logical switch 405”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”, Fig. 4 “U1”, U2”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2);
Chanda does not explicitly teach
Menon teaches configuring the one or more of service engines to store state information ([0198] “A downstream controller 1916 identifier uses stateful inspection, as described herein, to identify the return packet. The downstream controller 1916 stores information 2034 (FIG. 20)”) related to the data message flow in a common connection tracker ([0090-91] “waypoint information base 2000. Each row represents a session. A session identification column 2002 includes sub-columns for the source client 2004 and the destination service 2006. For each client 2004, its network address 2008 and port number 2010 are stored. For each destination service 2006, its network address 2012 and port number 2014 are stored. This information is extracted from the lead packet … State information about the session may be stored in a state column 2015. This information may be used to statefully follow a series of packets, such as when a session is being initiated or ended”, (Examiner’s Note: waypoint information base 2000== common connection tracker) and to perform a one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flow ([0214] “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol described in IETF RFC 5880, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Specifically, a sending node transmits BFD packets including special metadata that allows a node to perform link status monitoring based on packet loss detection. For convenience, this use of the BFD protocol with added metadata may be referred to herein as “augmented BFD.” In certain exemplary embodiments, link status information can be used in the context of “stateful” routing”, [0204] “These return packets may be identified by destination address and port number being equal to the information 2032 (FIG. 20) in the waypoint information base corresponding to the session. A return packet modifier modifies the return packets to address them to the upstream waypoint for the session, as identified by the information 2018 in the waypoint information base 2000”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chanda to incorporate the teachings of Menon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the system to provide more effective routing [0062].
Regarding claim 22, 34, Chanda teaches wherein the network edge device comprises a first set of interfaces connected to a first corresponding set of interfaces of the first set of gateway devices and a second set of interfaces connected to a second corresponding set of interfaces of the second set of gateway devices (Fig. 4 “L1”, L2”, [0077] “The logical router 415 has an interface L1 to the first logical switch 405”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”, Fig. 4 “U1”, U2”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2).
Regarding claim 23, 35 Chanda teaches wherein the logical switch implements a plurality of datapaths through the network edge device, each datapath defined, at least in part, by identifying a first interface in the first set of interfaces of the network edge device (Fig. 5 “L1”, L2”, “VM”, [0141] “address of the packet (or the ingress port through which the packet is received), the datapath on the MHFE 590 initially runs the source logical switch pipeline, which is the logical switch 410 (LS2)”) and a corresponding second interface in the second set of interfaces of the network edge device that are connected through the logical switch (Fig 4 “L1”, “U1”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2”).
Regarding claim 24, 36, Chanda teaches wherein configuring the logical switch comprises configuring the logical switch, for each of the data message flow, (i) to receive the data message flow at a particular ingress interface ([0044] “In active-active mode, all of the service components are fully functional at the same time, and traffic can ingress or egress from the logical network through the service components using equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) forwarding principles (balancing the traffic across the various service routing components)”) in the first set of interfaces of the network device (Fig. 5 “L1”, L2”, [0141] “address of the packet (or the ingress port through which the packet is received), the datapath on the MHFE 590 initially runs the source logical switch pipeline, which is the logical switch 410 (LS2)”),
(ii) to provide the data message flow to a service engine associated with the particular ingress interface to perform a state service ([0071] “stateful services are configured … to send packets via a tunnel to the active SR”)
and (iii) to forward the data message flow to an interface ([0142] “The SR pipeline sends the packet to the physical network that has the destination IP address”) in the second set of interfaces of the network edge device associated with a same datapath as the particular ingress interface in the first set of interfaces of the network edge device on which the data message flow was received ([0142] “identifies the SR based on the logical context information on the packet (e.g., the VNI of the transit logical switch 520) as well as the destination MAC address that corresponds to the SR's southbound interface”).
Chanda does not explicitly teach and store state information about the stateful service in the common connection tracker .
Menon teaches and store state information about the stateful service in the common connection tracker ([0090-91] “waypoint information base 2000. Each row represents a session. A session identification column 2002 includes sub-columns for the source client 2004 and the destination service 2006. For each client 2004, its network address 2008 and port number 2010 are stored. For each destination service 2006, its network address 2012 and port number 2014 are stored. This information is extracted from the lead packet … State information about the session may be stored in a state column 2015. This information may be used to statefully follow a series of packets, such as when a session is being initiated or ended”, (Examiner’s Note: waypoint information base 2000== common connection tracker) and to perform a one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flow ([0214] “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol described in IETF RFC 5880, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Specifically, a sending node transmits BFD packets including special metadata that allows a node to perform link status monitoring based on packet loss detection. For convenience, this use of the BFD protocol with added metadata may be referred to herein as “augmented BFD.” In certain exemplary embodiments, link status information can be used in the context of “stateful” routing”, [0204] “These return packets may be identified by destination address and port number being equal to the information 2032 (FIG. 20) in the waypoint information base corresponding to the session. A return packet modifier modifies the return packets to address them to the upstream waypoint for the session, as identified by the information 2018 in the waypoint information base 2000”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chanda to incorporate the teachings of Menon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the system to provide more effective routing [0062].
Regarding claim 25, 37, Chanda teaches wherein the logical switch comprises a bridge connecting paired corresponding interfaces in the first and second interfaces of the network edge device (Fig. 5 “DR”, “LS3”, [0080] “The DR is assigned the two southbound interfaces of the logical router 415, which connect to the logical switches 405 and 410”, Fig 4 “L1”, “U1”, [0006] “Some embodiments implement each of the service routing components of the logical network on an edge node”).
Regarding claim 26, 38, Chanda teaches wherein a pair of corresponding interfaces in the first and second interfaces of the network edge device are associated with first and second ports (Fig 4 “L1”, “U1”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2”) of the logical switch (Fig 4. “Logical Router”, [0077] “The logical router 415 has an interface L1 to the first logical switch 405”) that bridge the first (Fig. 4 “LS1”, “LS2”, “VM1”, [0077] “As shown, the logical switches 405 and 410 are each assigned their own subnets, 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.1.2.0/24”) and second networks (Fig 4. “10.0.0.0/8”, “11.0.0.0/8”).
Regarding claim 27, 39, Chanda teaches wherein a particular datapath in the plurality of datapaths is defined by:one interface in the first set of interfaces of the network edge device that is addressable at a first media access control (MAC) address ([0104] “The process also assigns a northbound interface to the DR and assigns both a MAC address and an IP address to this interface”),
one interface in the second set of interfaces of the network edge device that is addressable at a second MAC address, and the logical switch ([0104] “The process also assigns southbound interfaces to the SRs with separate MAC and IP addresses (only the active-standby SRs may share the same IP address)”).
Regarding claim 28, 40, Chanda teaches wherein the first and second plurality of interfaces of the network edge device ([0007] “ MHFE acts as the edge node of the logical router “) are link aggregation groups ([0160] “a user associates each logical router (e.g., each PLR or TLR) with a set of physical machines (e.g., a pre-defined group of machines in the datacenter) for deployment … as the DR is implemented across the managed forwarding elements that reside on hosts along with the data compute nodes that connect to the logical network. However, if the logical router implementation includes SRs, then these SRs will each be deployed on specific physical machines.”).
Regarding claim 29, Chanda teaches wherein the one or more stateful services comprises a stateful firewall (Fig 4 “420”, “Logical Router 415”, “LS1 405”, [0086] “SRs may deliver services (i.e., functionalities beyond simply routing, such as NAT, firewall, load balancing, etc.) and provide the connection between the logical network and external physical networks”).
Regarding claim 30, Chanda teaches wherein the first network is a logical network and the second network is a physical network ([0086] “provide the connection between the logical network and external physical networks”).
Regarding claim 31, Chanda teaches wherein the first network is a logical network (Fig 4 “VM1”, “LS1 1.1.1.0/24, [0079] “for any packet that has a destination IP address that is in the subnet of LS1”) and the second network is a physical network (Fig 4 “10.0.0.0/8”, [0079] “any packet with the subnet IP address of 10.0.0.0/8 is to be routed from either logical port U1 or logical port U2”).
Regarding claim 32, Chanda teaches wherein the first network is a logical network and the second network is a physical network (Fig. 9 “TOR”, “Host1”, “GW1”, “GW2”, “External Network”, [0029] “a control plane view for the physical network implementation shown in FIG. 9”).
Regarding claim 33, Chanda teaches A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program for execution by at least one processing unit, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
configuring a network edge device (Fig. 10 “LR”, Service Router 1”, “Service Router 2”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”), that is deployed between a first gateway device of a first network and a second gateway device of a second network, to provide one or more stateful service on data messages sent from the first gateway device to a second gateway device (Fig. 10 “L1”, “L2”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”),
configuring the logical switch to forward to one or more service engines one or more data message flows that pass between the first and second gateways through the logical switch (Fig. 4 “L1”, L2”, [0077] “The logical router 415 has an interface L1 to the first logical switch 405”, [0154] “L1 to the first logical switch 1125, with an IP address of 1.1.1.253 that is the default gateway … L2 to the second logical switch 1130, with an IP address of 1.1.2.253 which is the default gateway”, [0142] “the selected SR (e.g., one of the gateway machines 330 and 335 in FIG. 9)”, Fig. 4 “U1”, U2”, [0078] “The northbound side of the logical router 415 has two uplinks, U1 and U2);
Chanda does not explicitly teach and configuring the one or more service engines to store state information related to the data message flows in a common connection tracker and to perform the one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flows.
Menon teaches and configuring the one or more service engines to store state information related to the data message flows in a common connection tracker and to perform the one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flows ([0090-91] “waypoint information base 2000. Each row represents a session. A session identification column 2002 includes sub-columns for the source client 2004 and the destination service 2006. For each client 2004, its network address 2008 and port number 2010 are stored. For each destination service 2006, its network address 2012 and port number 2014 are stored. This information is extracted from the lead packet … State information about the session may be stored in a state column 2015. This information may be used to statefully follow a series of packets, such as when a session is being initiated or ended”, (Examiner’s Note: waypoint information base 2000== common connection tracker) and to perform a one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flow ([0214] “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol described in IETF RFC 5880, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Specifically, a sending node transmits BFD packets including special metadata that allows a node to perform link status monitoring based on packet loss detection. For convenience, this use of the BFD protocol with added metadata may be referred to herein as “augmented BFD.” In certain exemplary embodiments, link status information can be used in the context of “stateful” routing”, [0204] “These return packets may be identified by destination address and port number being equal to the information 2032 (FIG. 20) in the waypoint information base corresponding to the session. A return packet modifier modifies the return packets to address them to the upstream waypoint for the session, as identified by the information 2018 in the waypoint information base 2000”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chanda to incorporate the teachings of Menon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the system to provide more effective routing [0062].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument
Claim 21 has been amended to recite the following feature: "configuring the one or more service engines to store state information related to the data message flows in a common connection tracker and to perform one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flows."
The Examiner maps the state information of claim 1 to state information of Pugaczewski.
Examiner’s Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See updated rejection Puga is no longer relied upon. The combination of Chanda in view of Menon is shown to teach claim 21. Newly added reference Menon is relied upon to show configuring the one or more service engines to store state information related to the data message flows in a common connection tracker and to perform one or more stateful services on the data message flows using the stored state information related to the data message flows."
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights