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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/11/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20210073020) in view of Subramani et al. (US 20230125912).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Zhu teaches: A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program for execution / A method for efficiently providing logical forwarding element (LFE) information (the first network configuration may be implemented by delivering a flow table on the first virtual switch par. 0061) needed for virtual machine (VM) migration to hosts in a software-defined network (SDN) (the first virtual switch and the second virtual switch establish a layer-2 network connection between the new virtual machine and the another virtual machine by using packet forwarding par. 0009), the method comprising: at a set of one or more controllers that configures a plurality of forwarding elements in the SDN to implement one LFE (the control node performing first network configuration on the first virtual switch, so that the first virtual switch can forward, to the new virtual machine based on the first network configuration par. 0060 – 0061): identifying a subset of one or more host computers in the SDN as a group of designated host computers for migrating one or more VMs (a host binding relationship needs to be updated on the control node, that is, a binding relationship between the to-be-migrated virtual machine and the host on which the to-be-migrated virtual machine is located is deleted, and a binding relationship between the new virtual machine and the host on which the new virtual machine is located is added par. 0089); retrieving, from a data store, configuration information for configuring any software forwarding element executing on any designated host computer to implement the LFE (the control node obtains, based on the virtual machine migration message, location information of a first virtual switch connected to a new virtual machine par. 0074); and providing the retrieved configuration information to each particular host computer in the subset of host computers before any VM is migrated to the particular host computer (first virtual switch is already created but the new virtual machine is not created par. 0074 – 0075), in order to pre-configure the particular host computer to implement the LFE without assistance from the set of controllers when a VM migrates to the particular host computer (the location information of the first virtual switch that is included in the virtual machine migration message is used to determine the first virtual switch connected to the new virtual machine par. 0075).
Zhu does not explicitly refer to an “LFE” or “logical forwarding element” by name.
However, Subramani teaches: at a set of one or more controllers that configures a plurality of forwarding elements in the SDN to implement one LFE (controllers within the computer system that also includes LFEs par. 0002 and 0058).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Zhu with Subramani since the teachings of Subramani would enhance the methods of Zhu by providing further logical network configuration/instantiation through the use of LFEs and configuration data, thereby allowing migrations between potentially cloned logical networks.
Regarding claim 2, Subramani teaches: wherein the LFE is a logical router (LFEs can include logical routers par. 0006) and the retrieved configuration information comprises information regarding the logical router and one or more logical router ports of the logical router (configuration data may include port bindings and other information regarding the logical network components par. 0005 – 0006).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Subramani teaches: wherein the LFE is a logical switch (LFEs can include logical switches par. 0006) and the retrieved configuration information comprises information regarding the logical switch (configuration data includes information regarding the logical network components par. 0005 – 0006).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Subramani teaches: before identifying the subset of host computers and retrieving the configuration information for the LFE: receiving a set of configuration data for the LFE (before defining the logical network, the cloning mechanism identifies a set of LFEs configured by the set of network configuration data par. 0006); extracting the configuration information from the set of configuration data (configuration data is retrieved out of one or more files storing set of network configuration data by the cloning mechanism par. 0006 – 0007 and 0040 - 0042); storing the configuration information in the data store (now replicated configuration data is stored in a data structure in the replica logical network par. 0006 – 0007); and configuring the LFE in the SDN (configuring the LFE based on the retrieved configuration data par. 0040 – 0042).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 15 and 20, Subramani teaches: wherein the set of configuration data is a first set of configuration data, the LFE is a first LFE, and the configuration information is a first set of configuration information (cloning mechanism is able to repeat processes on any number of clones logical networks, therefore it can be assumed by the examiner that any number of cloned logical network could be considered the first in this process par. 0002 – 0004 and 0052), the method further comprising: after providing the first set of configuration information (after configuring the ‘first’ logical network par. 0006): receiving a second set of configuration data for a second LFE (retrieving configuration data by the cloning mechanism par. 0006 – 0007); extracting a second set of configuration information from the second set of configuration data (configuration data is retrieved out of one or more files storing set of network configuration data by the cloning mechanism par. 0006 – 0007 and 0040 – 0042); storing the second set of configuration information in the data store (now replicated configuration data is stored in a data structure in the replica logical network par. 0006 – 0007); configuring the second LFE in the SDN (configuring the LFE based on the retrieved configuration data par. 0040 – 0042); and providing the second set of configuration information to each host computer in the subset of host computers (providing external networks access to logical networks and the information therein par. 0025 – 0026).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Subramani in view of Wan et al. (US 10742503).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Wan teaches: wherein identifying the subset of host computers as the group of designated hosts comprises receiving a user-specified list indicating the subset of host computers as the group of designated hosts (some embodiments allow a user to define groups of logical entities and apply entity configuration profiles to the groups Col. 1 lines 56 – 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Zhu and Subramani with the teachings of Wan since the embodiments of Wan would enhance the teachings of Zhu and Subramani by the inclusion of a management plane with an API which allows users to configure/define logical entities, thereby giving the user the ability to define sets of logical entities.
Regarding claim 5, Wan teaches: wherein the user-specified list is received from a set of one or more management servers of the SDN (the network management and control system includes a management plane with an API through which a user provides network configuration data for defining and configuring logical entities Col. 1 Lines 37 – 42).
For motivation to combine see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Wan teaches: wherein the set of management servers implement a management plane for the SDN (the management plane is implemented by one or more network managers and includes an API through which a user provides network configuration data for defining and configuring logical networks Col. 5 Lines 3 – 8).
For motivation to combine see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, Wan teaches: wherein a user provides the user-specified list to the management plane using an Application Programming Interface (API) call (the management plane is implemented in some embodiments by one or more network managers and includes an API through which a user provides network configuration data Col. 5 Lines 3 – 8, the configuration data containing user-defined groups of logical entities Col. 1 lines 56 – 57).
For motivation to combine see claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, Subramani, and Wan, and further in view of Van Der Walt et al. (US 10459594).
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Walt teaches: wherein a user provides the user-specified list to the management plane through a graphical user interface (GUI) (GUI module enables a GUI to facilitate the creating and managing of hosts and virtual machines Col. 8 Lines 55 – 57).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Zhu, Subramani, and Wan with the teachings of Van Der Walt since it would enhance the prior combination by providing a GUI module that enables facilitation of creation and management of hosts and virtual machines in a virtualized infrastructure.
Regarding claim 9, Van Der Walt teaches: wherein the GUI comprises a drop down menu for the user to select one or more host computers in the SDN to include in the subset of host computers (a user selects from a drop down box the entry that is desired for the particular parameter, and portion 910 depicts a list of hosts supported by the appliance Col. 12 lines 56 – 57 and Col. 16 Lines 22 – 23).
For motivation to combine see claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu and Subramani in view of Pan et al. (US 20180270105).
Regarding claim 10, Pan teaches: wherein the set of controllers of the SDN implements a central control plane (CCP) of the SDN (SDN controllers include central control plain modules for implementing a CCP par. 0019 and 0031).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Zhu and Subramani with the teachings of Pan since the teachings of Pan provide solutions to challenges relating to control-plane connectivity as well as maintaining mappings between hosts in an SDN.
Regarding claim 11, Pan teaches: wherein providing the retrieved configuration information to each particular host computer in the subset of host computers comprises providing the retrieved LFE information to a local control plane (LCP) module at each host computer in the subset of host computers (to send and receive control information, local control plane agents on hosts require control-plane connectivity with central control plane modules at SDN controllers par. 0019, 0023, and 0044 – 0045).
For motivation to combine see claim 10 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Pan teaches: receiving, from each host computer in the subset of host computers, a network address of the host computer (control information may be related to logical networks and overlay transport tunnels in the virtualized computing environment, such as address mapping information and topology information par. 0024); using the received network addresses to create a network address list comprising a network address for each host computer in the subset of host computers (control information includes logical network topology, therefore it can be assumed that each host computer is given an address mapping par. 0024); and distributing the network address list to each host computer in the SDN not included in the subset of host computers (as an example, host 110C requests control information via P2P network with any “second hosts” that may or may not be able to provide control information, thereby implying that some hosts, such as host 110B that cannot satisfy the request, host 110C may not be in a certain grouping of hosts par. 0023 – 0028).
For motivation to combine see claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 13, Pan teaches: wherein the network address list is also provided to each host computer in the subset of host computers (since host 110A is able to provide control information with host 110C, it can be assumed that they are within some sort of grouping within the network par. 0023 – 0028).
For motivation to combine see claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ang et al. (US 20220103487) which outlines migration of compute nodes as well as flow processing in logical networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN SCOTT MOTTER whose telephone number is (703)756-1550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m..
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 571-272-4215. 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.
/J.S.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198