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 .
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues claim 1 requires two distinct sequence numbers for a host, a first number tracking intra-data center movement and a second number to track inter-data center movement. Examiner maps Srinivasan’s “SEQ” to the first sequence number and “ORIG” to the second sequence number, but fails to establish how ORIG is a sequence number that tracks inter-data center movement. The field merely changes from “141” to “150.”
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes for a value to be considered a “sequence number” means it is just any ordered number that e.g. identifies the node in some way and may change. The claim does not indicate how the sequence tracks the movement or changes based on the movement. The ORIG value in Figure 7A is a number pertaining to the node, thus considered a sequence number. In ¶0081, host 410 migrates from domain 10to domain 120 (inter-data center movement). In the process, the sequence value, ORIG, is changed in one table to 150 to signify the border element indicating a inter-data center movement, thus the sequence number changing between the edge element e.g. 140 or 141 to the border element e.g. 150 indicates a movement from one data center to another and therefore supports the language of the claim. The same response applies to Applicant’s broader argument regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 on page 10. Thus, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”) (US 20180309685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivasan teaches:
A method comprising:
creating a first routing table at each of a plurality of provider edge nodes in a first data center [Figure 4A data center 110, control plane 420 includes routing information, ¶0053 “The network element 141 generates and advertises on the control plane 420, a type-2 EVPN MAC-IP route 422, as well as a type-2 MAC only route 424. The type-2 route 422 and 424 are propagated via the control plane 420 of the network domain 110 to all of the other network elements that have the relevant subnet instantiated], the first routing table including a first sequence number for a host connected to one of the plurality of provider edge nodes [¶0053 routing table 420 advertised to all nodes, includes SEQ column for each route, incremented ¶0030, ¶0080], the first sequence number being used to track intra-data center movement of the host within the first data center [¶0078 “[A]ny migration of a host from one network element to a new network element within the same domain updates the control plane of that domain with the new type-2 routes directing traffic to the new network element.”];
creating a second routing table at a corresponding gateway of each of a plurality of data centers, the plurality of data centers including the first data center [Border element 150 maintains control plane table 420 see ¶0053 “Figure 4A data center 110, control plane 420 includes routing information, ¶0053 “The network element 141 generates and advertises on the control plane 420, a type-2 EVPN MAC-IP route 422, as well as a type-2 MAC only route 424. The type-2 route 422 and 424 are propagated via the control plane 420 of the network domain 110 to all of the other network elements that have the relevant subnet instantiated” including border element 150, 155 considered gateways of each of data center 110, 120] the second routing table including the first sequence number for the host and a second sequence number for the host [Figure 4A, SEQ for hostA, 424, and ORIG corresponding to second sequence number for the host, ¶0060 indication of node e.g. 141 to which host is attached, the indication of the node 141, being ORIG in 420, considered a “second sequence number” under broadest reasonable interpretation as any indication or label in these tables may correspond to a second sequence number], the second sequence number being used to track inter-data center movement of the host between the plurality of data centers [¶0081 detect MAC change from GARP message indicating new ORIG when device moves between network domains / data centers as this sequence will change from a local element e.g. 141 to gateway 150, 155]; and updating one of (1) the first sequence number in the first routing table when the host makes an intra-data center move from a first provider edge node to a second provider edge node in the first data center, or (2) the second sequence number in the second routing table when the host makes an inter-data center move from the first data center to a second data center of the plurality of data centers [¶0081 update second sequence, ORIG, in 420 for 742, see Figure 7A when host 410 moves between domains 110, 120, ORIG changes to 150 from 141 thus updated].
Regarding claim 8, Srinivasan teaches:
A network controller comprising: one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: [¶0099]
create a first routing table at each of a plurality of provider edge nodes in a first data center [Figure 4A data center 110, control plane 420 includes routing information, ¶0053 “The network element 141 generates and advertises on the control plane 420, a type-2 EVPN MAC-IP route 422, as well as a type-2 MAC only route 424. The type-2 route 422 and 424 are propagated via the control plane 420 of the network domain 110 to all of the other network elements that have the relevant subnet instantiated], the first routing table including a first sequence number for a host connected to one of the plurality of provider edge nodes [¶0053 routing table 420 advertised to all nodes, includes SEQ column for each route, incremented ¶0030, ¶0080], the first sequence number being used to track intra-data center movement of the host within the first data center [¶0078 “[A]ny migration of a host from one network element to a new network element within the same domain updates the control plane of that domain with the new type-2 routes directing traffic to the new network element.”];
create a second routing table at a corresponding gateway of each of a plurality of data centers, the plurality of data centers including the first data center [Border element 150 maintains control plane table 420 see ¶0053 “Figure 4A data center 110, control plane 420 includes routing information, ¶0053 “The network element 141 generates and advertises on the control plane 420, a type-2 EVPN MAC-IP route 422, as well as a type-2 MAC only route 424. The type-2 route 422 and 424 are propagated via the control plane 420 of the network domain 110 to all of the other network elements that have the relevant subnet instantiated” including border element 150, 155 considered gateways of each of data center 110, 120], the second routing table including the first sequence number for the host and a second sequence number for the host [Figure 4A, SEQ for hostA, 424, and ORIG corresponding to second sequence number for the host, ¶0060 indication of node e.g. 141 to which host is attached, the indication of the node 141, being ORIG in 420, considered a second sequence number under broadest reasonable interpretation], the second sequence number being used to track inter-data center movement of the host between the plurality of data centers [¶0081 detect MAC change from GARP message indicating new ORIG (updating second sequence number) when device moves between network domains / data centers as this sequence will change from a local element e.g. 141 to gateway 150, 155]; and update one of (1) the first sequence number in the first routing table when the host makes an intra-data center move from a first provider edge node to a second provider edge node in the first data center, or (2) the second sequence number in the second routing table when the host makes an inter-data center move from the first data center to a second data center of the plurality of data centers [¶0081 update second sequence, ORIG, in 420 for 742, see Figure 7A when host 410 moves between domains 110, 120, ORIG changes to 150 from 141 thus updated].
Regarding claim 9, Srinivasan teaches:
The network controller of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an indication of the intra-data center movement of the host when a second provider edge node in the first data center advertises a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the host [¶0053, “The network element 141 generates and advertises on the control plane 420, a type-2 EVPN MAC-IP route 422, as well as a type-2 MAC only route 424. The type-2 route 422 and 424 are propagated via the control plane 420 of the network domain 110 to all of the other network elements that have the relevant subnet instantiated.” MAC-Ip including MAC of host 410, and see ¶0078 “[A]ny migration of a host from one network element to a new network element within the same domain updates the control plane of that domain with the new type-2 routes directing traffic to the new network element.”].
Regarding claim 10, Srinivasan teaches:
The network controller of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to update the first sequence number in the second routing table at the corresponding gateway of the second data center [¶0078 type-2 routes stored for hosts are updated for intra-data center movement, including sequence number updated to obtain the latest route see ¶0029-30, and ¶0080 sequence ID of routes 722 and 724 incremented at control plane 420 in each node including gateway 155 for movement of host into the domain 120 from other domain 110].
Regarding claim 11, Srinivasan teaches:
The network controller of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an indication of the inter-data center movement of the host when the corresponding gateway of the second data center receives a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the host from a provider edge node in the second data center [¶0079-80, host 410 moves into second data center being network domain 120 in Figure 7A, “The migration 700 of the host 410 from the network domain 110 to the network domain 120 causes all of the stored host routes for the host 410 to become outdated. When the migrated host 410 is started on the new domain 120, it sends a GARP to the network element 147 including the MAC-IP binding 710 for the host 410.” And “The local type-2 routes 722 and 724 supersede the previous type-2 route 728 by incrementing the Sequence ID of the routes 722 and 724. ” And ¶0084, Figure 7B, this route is propagated through network to border element 155 corresponding to gateway of second data center].
Regarding claim 12, Srinivasan teaches:
The network controller of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: update the second sequence number in the second routing table at the corresponding gateway of the second data center; advertise the MAC address of the host to the corresponding gateway of remaining data centers of the plurality of data centers [¶0079-81, update ORIG node indication i.e. from 150 to 147 in routing table 440 of second data center 120, and propagate message with MAC to other domains 110 over DCI as in ¶0080-82].
Regarding claim 2-4, 15-19, see similar rejections for claims 8-12 which teach the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”) (US 20180309685 A1) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20180077047 A1, hereinafter referenced as ‘047, see Applicant’s IDS filed 5/26/2023 for citation).
Regarding claim 13, Srinivasan teaches:
The network controller of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: remove, from the second routing table at the corresponding gateway of the first data center, previously advertised MAC address of the host [Figure 7A, 424 is shown as being removed, ¶0081 “ the stale type-2 route 424 is removed from the control plane 420.”].
Srinivasan teaches updating the route information for an inter-data center move but not incrementing the sequence number.
‘047 teaches an inter-data center move in Figure 3 including the step of increment, at the corresponding gateway of the first data center, the first sequence number for the host [Figure 3 shows host 3 moves from 110-120 see ¶0034, and upon receiving update at border node 150(1) (gateway) in previous domain, ¶0037 “the border leaf node 150(1) updates the Layer 2 route associated with the host device 160 to have an increased sequence number of X+1 and a forwarding location for the host device 160 as the border network device 150(1).”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify incrementing the sequence number at the first gateway as in ‘047. Srinivasan teaches updating a sequence number and it would have been obvious to update this number upon inter-data center movement at the original data center’s gateway as in ‘047 to ensure proper layer 2 forwarding of data packets ¶0037.
Regarding claim 6, 20, see similar rejections for claim 13 which teaches the physical structure performing the corresponding steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160134526 A1
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 JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478