DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 11/02/2023.
Claims are presented for examination.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), and based on application # 10-2021-0099106 filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 7/28/2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement (filed 11/02/2023) has been received, entered into the record, and considered. A copy of PTO 1449 form is attached.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed 11/02/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
5. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The abbreviations used in these claims should be defined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an identification part configured to…” and “a management part configured to...” (in claims 1, 3, and 5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that there does not appear to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the named limitations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
Claims 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As given above, the named limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, rendering these limitations indefinite.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th Paragraph applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to add structure, material or acts that are sufficient to perform the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 15 recites a “program”. However, the claim fails to assert the program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium so as to be structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and permit the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer without a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium needed to realize the computer program’s functionality, it is regarded as nonstatutory functional descriptive material. Accordingly, claim 15 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20200267095).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Zhang teaches an edge platform management device comprising:
an identification part configured to identify, when a routing event occurs in relation to Internet traffic-processing of a virtual machine (VM) in an edge platform, an edge gateway device for processing Internet traffic for the virtual machine ([0041]: these gateways (that provide centralized aspects of logical routers, as well as which form the connection to the external network for distributed PLRs) may be implemented as virtual machines (sometimes referred to as Edge VMs); [0184]: FIG. 14B illustrates the packet processing for ingressing (southbound) packets. The packet is received at one of the gateway machines on which an SR operates. The MFE at the gateway machine identifies the destination SR based on the VLAN and destination MAC address of the incoming packet, and runs the SR pipeline (e.g., sends the packet to the VM on which the SR operates, or runs the pipeline directly in the datapath, depending on how the SR is implemented). The SR pipeline identifies the DR 1420 as its next hop. The MFE then executes the transit logical switch 1435 pipeline, which forwards the packet to the DR, as well as the DR pipeline, which routes the packet to its destination. The destination logical switch pipeline (i.e., one of the logical switches 1410 and 1415) is also executed, which specifies to tunnel the packet to the MFE of the host machine on which the destination VM resides; see also, [0189] and 0194-0195]); and
a management part configured to transfer, through the edge gateway device, an event message according to the routing event to a switch for routing Internet traffic in the edge platform, thereby a routing table of the switch for a routing operation being updated based on the event message ([0298]: In order for the VM on the gateway 2110 to take over the IP address of SR3 2130, the VM sends GARP messages for this IP address (and, in other cases, all IP addresses that it takes over) to the transit logical switch that connects the DR and the SR 2120-2130. In some embodiments, the VM sends multiple GARP messages in order to better ensure that the message is received. The MFE 2140 receives these GARP messages, and sends them to the MFE 2135 (for delivery to SR1 2120) as well as to the MFEs at the various hosts 2150-2155 (so that the DR will know to remove from its ARP cache the old SR2 IP to MAC address mapping).
As to claim 2:
Zhang teaches the routing event comprises an event in which a specific floating IP address is allocated to a first virtual machine in order to support Internet traffic-processing of the first virtual machine in the edge platform, or an event in which the specific floating IP address allocated to the first virtual machine is re-allocated to a second virtual machine ([0083], [0290], and [0297]).
As to claim 3:
Zhang teaches the management part is configured to map the specific floating IP address and a MAC address of the first virtual machine within the routing table or update a MAC address mapped to the specific floating IP address from the MAC address of the first virtual machine to a MAC address of the second virtual machine based on the event message ([0083], ([0183-0184], and [0188-0189]).
As to claim 4:
Zhang teaches the routing event comprises an event in which an edge gateway device for processing Internet traffic for the virtual machine is changed from a first edge gateway device to a second edge gateway device ([0179] and [0284]).
As to claim 5:
Zhang teaches the management part is configured to transfer the event message through the second edge gateway device to update an edge gateway device for processing Internet traffic of the virtual machine from the first edge gateway device to the second edge gateway device within the routing table ([0075], [0209], and [0252]).
As to claim 6:
Zhang teaches the event message comprises a gratuitous ARP (GARP) message that updates information in the routing table using a MAC address and an IP address in a message field ([0011-0012] and [0154-0156]).
As to claim 7:
Zhang teaches an edge gateway device configured to, when a routing event occurs in relation to Internet traffic-processing of a virtual machine (VM) in an edge platform, transfer an event message according to the routing event received from an edge platform management device to a switch and cause the switch to update a routing table being managed for a routing operation based on the event message ([0041]: these gateways (that provide centralized aspects of logical routers, as well as which form the connection to the external network for distributed PLRs) may be implemented as virtual machines (sometimes referred to as Edge VMs); [0184]: FIG. 14B illustrates the packet processing for ingressing (southbound) packets. The packet is received at one of the gateway machines on which an SR operates. The MFE at the gateway machine identifies the destination SR based on the VLAN and destination MAC address of the incoming packet, and runs the SR pipeline (e.g., sends the packet to the VM on which the SR operates, or runs the pipeline directly in the datapath, depending on how the SR is implemented). The SR pipeline identifies the DR 1420 as its next hop. The MFE then executes the transit logical switch 1435 pipeline, which forwards the packet to the DR, as well as the DR pipeline, which routes the packet to its destination. The destination logical switch pipeline (i.e., one of the logical switches 1410 and 1415) is also executed, which specifies to tunnel the packet to the MFE of the host machine on which the destination VM resides; [0298]: In order for the VM on the gateway 2110 to take over the IP address of SR3 2130, the VM sends GARP messages for this IP address (and, in other cases, all IP addresses that it takes over) to the transit logical switch that connects the DR and the SR 2120-2130. In some embodiments, the VM sends multiple GARP messages in order to better ensure that the message is received. The MFE 2140 receives these GARP messages, and sends them to the MFE 2135 (for delivery to SR1 2120) as well as to the MFEs at the various hosts 2150-2155 (so that the DR will know to remove from its ARP cache the old SR2 IP to MAC address mapping; see also, [0189] and 0194-0195]).
As to claim 8:
Zhang teaches the routing event comprises at least one of an event in which a specific floating IP address is allocated to a first virtual machine in order to support Internet traffic-processing of the first virtual machine in the edge platform, or the specific floating IP address allocated to the first virtual machine is re-allocated to a second virtual machine and an event in which a device for processing Internet traffic for the virtual machine is changed from another edge gateway device to the edge gateway device ([0083], [0290], and [0297]).
As to claims 9-14:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-6 above, respectively, for rejection. Claims 9-14 are the same as claims 1-6, except claims 9-14 are method claims and claims 1-6 are device claims.
As to claim 15:
Zhang teaches program configured to be stored in a medium and combined with hardware to execute each operation of claim 9 ([0325-0327]).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights