DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This is responsive to Application 18/208,819 filed 09/06/2023 in which claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 21-25, 28-35 and 38-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Ankaiah et al (US 2010/0293250 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ankaiah teaches a method for controlling network traffic passing through a logical switch, the logical switch comprising a plurality of logical ports through which network traffic enters or exits the logical switch, the logical switch implemented by one or more managed switches having one or more managed ports (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026], [0051] switch 151 in a virtual LAN), the method comprising:
specifying a set of network addresses for a particular logical port of the logical switch (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026], [0078] switch 151 associated with a binding table); and
dropping particular network traffic entering or exiting the logical switch through the particular logical port when the particular network traffic does not include the specified set of network addresses (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0010], switch drops packets based on source MAC/IP address/network address).
Regarding claim 31, Ankaiah teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program for controlling network traffic passing through a logical switch, the logical switch comprising a plurality of logical ports through which network traffic enters or exits the logical switch, the logical switch implemented by one or more managed switches having one or more managed ports (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026], [0051] switch 151 in a virtual LAN), the program comprising sets of instructions for:
specifying a set of network addresses for a particular logical port of the logical switch (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026], [0078] switch 151 associated with a binding table); and
dropping particular network traffic entering or exiting the logical switch through the particular logical port when the particular network traffic does not include the specified set of network addresses (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0010], switch drops packets based on source MAC/IP address/network address).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Ankaiah teaches wherein the set of network addresses is specified in an access control list (ACL) for the particular logical port (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026]).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Ankaiah teaches wherein the set of network address includes at least one of a Media Access Control (MAC) address and an Internet Protocol (IP) address (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026]).
Regarding claims 24 and 34, Ankaiah teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes a source MAC address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes a MAC address that is different than the source MAC address and the particular network traffic attempts to enter the logical switch through the particular logical port (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0010], [0026]).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Ankaiah teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes a source IP address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes an IP address that is different than the source IP address and the particular network traffic attempts to enter the logical switch through the particular logical port (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0012], [0026]).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Ankaiah teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes an Access Resolution Protocol (ARP) response that includes a MAC address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes a MAC address that is different than the ARP response's MAC address and the particular network traffic attempts to enter the logical switch through the particular logical port (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0011], [0026], [0039]).
Regarding claims 29 and 39, Ankaiah teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes an Access Resolution Protocol (ARP) response that includes an IP address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes an IP address that is different than the APR response's IP address and the particular network traffic attempts to enter the logical switch through the particular logical port (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0011], [0026], [0039]).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Ankaiah teaches wherein the logical switch is implemented by a plurality of physical switches executing on a plurality of host computers (Ankaiah: Fig. 1; [0026], [0042]; [0051]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26, 27, 36 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ankaiah et al (US 2010/0293250 A1) in view of Goldman et al (US 2009/0063706 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 36, Ankaiah does not explicitly disclose wherein the particular network traffic includes a destination MAC address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes a MAC address that is different than the destination MAC address and the particular network traffic attempts to exit the logical switch through the particular logical port.
Goldman teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes a destination MAC address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes a MAC address that is different than the destination MAC address and the particular network traffic attempts to exit the logical switch through the particular logical port (Goldman: Figs. 2-3; [0051], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art at the the time of the invention to modify the system of Ankaiah wherein the particular network traffic includes a destination MAC address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes a MAC address that is different than the destination MAC address and the particular network traffic attempts to exit the logical switch through the particular logical port as disclose by to provide a system for virtual MAC address with layer 3 IP address routing (Abstract).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Ankaiah in view of Goldman teaches wherein the particular network traffic includes a destination IP address, wherein dropping the particular network traffic comprises dropping the particular network traffic when the set of network address includes an IP address that is different than the destination IP address and the particular network traffic attempts to exit the logical switch through the particular logical port (Goldman: Figs. 2-3; [0045]-[0046]; [0054], claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm.
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, Avellino Joseph can be reached at (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights