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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) or applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim “containerized virtual router configured to” “containerized routing protocol process configured to” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Applicant's specification is devoid of sufficient disclosure of structure for these terms as required by 112 second paragraph.
Rationale for invoking §112 6¶
Examiners will apply § 112, ¶ 6 to a claim limitation that meets the following conditions:
(1) The claim limitation uses the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or a non-structural term that does not have a structural modifier;
(2) The phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is modified by functional language; and
(3) The phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
This modifies the 3-prong analysis in MPEP § 2181, which will be revised in due course. See Supplemental Examination, 76 FR at 7167.
“When the claim limitation does not use the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for,’’ examiners should determine whether the claim limitation uses a nonstructural term (a term that is simply a substitute for the term ‘‘means for’’). Examiners will apply § 112, ¶6 to a claim limitation that uses a nonstructural term associated with functional language, unless the nonstructural term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘‘filters’’), or (2) modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function. The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: ‘‘mechanism for,’’ ‘‘module for,’’ ‘‘device for,’’ ‘‘unit for,’’ ‘‘component for,’’ ‘‘element for,’’ ‘‘member for,’’ ‘‘apparatus for,’’ ‘‘machine for,’’ or ‘‘system for.’’ This list is not exhaustive, and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6.” See id.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step, or non-structure terms) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
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 is required to 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6-10, 15-17 and 19 are 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.
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)(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 1-3, 5, 11-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berzin (USPGPub 2024/0039792).
As per claim 1, Berzin teaches a computing device configured with a first containerized router, (Berzin, see paragraph [0061], the virtual chips 317 may be used to run network software (e.g., containerized implementations of virtual) the computing device comprising:
processing circuitry; (Berzin, see paragraph [0107], (e.g., a digital processor, an analog processor)
a containerized virtual router configured to execute on the processing circuitry and configured to implement a data plane for the first containerized router (Berzin, see paragraph [0061], virtual routers, and/or virtual user plane functions) Also see paragraph [0005], network slicing with programmable data-plane pipelines, the method comprising creating slice contexts, where creating the slice contexts comprises creating control-plane data for each of a plurality of network slices, creating data-plane data for each of the plurality of network slices) and
a containerized routing protocol process (Berzin, see paragraph [0061], the virtual chips 317 may be used to run network software (e.g., containerized implementations of virtual) configured to execute on the processing circuitry and configured to implement a control plane for the first containerized router wherein the containerized routing protocol process is configured to execute a routing protocol (Berzin, see paragraph [0057], the control plane 102 comprises one or more slice contexts 120 (e.g., slice 1 context 120-a, slice 2 context 120-b, slice 3 context 120-c), where each of the one or more slice contexts 120 at the control plane 102 corresponds to a slice)
wherein the first containerized router is configured to program a virtual private cloud (VPC) route table (Berzin, see paragraph [0070], the packet processing pipeline applied may be based on the slice type (e.g., 5G slice type, storage slice type virtual private cloud or VPC slice type,) in a VPC gateway based on routing information received by the containerized routing protocol process via the routing protocol and wherein the first containerized router is communicatively coupled to a second containerized router via a virtual router redundancy protocol (VRRP) session (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], virtual routers 973 configured for direct programming control via APIs, according to various aspects of the disclosure. The virtual routers 9731 may implement one or more aspects of the network slices described above. …Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
As per claim 2, Berzin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the VRRP session comprises a unicast session. (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], virtual routers 973 configured for direct programming control via APIs, according to various aspects of the disclosure. The virtual routers 9731 may implement one or more aspects of the network slices described above. …Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
As per claim 3, Berzin teaches the computing device of claim 1, further comprising a VRRP component configured to execute on the processing circuitry. (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], virtual routers 973 configured for direct programming control via APIs, according to various aspects of the disclosure. The virtual routers 9731 may implement one or more aspects of the network slices described above. …Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
As per claim 5, Berzin teaches the computing device of claim 1, wherein the first containerized router is configured to share a virtual IP address with the second containerized router on an interface facing one or more worker nodes of a data center. (Berzin, see paragraph [0062], a slice 357 may be dedicated to one enterprise customer, or alternatively, shared by multiple tenants.)
As per claim 11, Berzin teaches a computer network method comprising:
connecting, by a first containerized router to a second containerized router, via a virtual router redundancy protocol (VRRP) session; (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], virtual routers 973 configured for direct programming control via APIs, according to various aspects of the disclosure. The virtual routers 9731 may implement one or more aspects of the network slices described above. …Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
determining, via the VRRP session, that the first containerized router is an active containerized router of the first containerized router and the second containerized router; connecting to a VPC gateway; (Berzin, see paragraph [0104], the vChips 917 may be used to run network software, such as containerized implementations of virtual routers 973. Further, each of the virtual routers 973 and vChips 917 is mapped to a port/interface 921 of the hardware platform 904. Besides the ASIC 906, the hardware platform 904 further includes one or more of a CPU 912, DRAM 910, and FPGA 914. In some embodiments, a platform management module 915 is provided to manage the one or more elements (e.g., virtual routers, docker engine) and
programming, by the process configured to program the VPC route table, and based on the first containerized router being the active containerized router, the VPC route table in the VPC gateway. (Berzin, see paragraph [0070], the packet processing pipeline applied may be based on the slice type (e.g., 5G slice type, storage slice type virtual private cloud or VPC slice type).
As per claim 12, Berzin teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the VRRP session comprises a unicast session. (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], virtual routers 973 configured for direct programming control via APIs, according to various aspects of the disclosure. The virtual routers 9731 may implement one or more aspects of the network slices described above. …Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)).
As per claim 13, Berzin teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the second containerized router is configured as a standby containerized router. (Berzin, see paragraph [0061], may be used to run network software (e.g., containerized implementations of virtual top of rack or vTOR switches, virtual routers, and/or virtual user plane functions), which enables instantiation and management of slices 357).
As per claim 14, Berzin teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising sharing, by the first containerized router, a virtual IP address with the second containerized router on an interface facing one or more worker nodes of a data center. (Berzin, see paragraph [0062], a slice 357 may be dedicated to one enterprise customer, or alternatively, shared by multiple tenants.)
As per claim 18, Berzin teaches the method of claim 15, wherein updating the VPC route table comprises sending a gratuitous address resolution protocol (ARP) message to the VPC gateway. (Berzin, see paragraph [0102], Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), and/or Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)).
As per claim 20,
[Rejection rational for claims 1 and 11 are applicable].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERMON ASRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4257. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571)272-7304. 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.
/HERMON ASRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449