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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed 7/29/25, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6, 12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
As per Applicant’s request, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims will be held in abeyance until final determination of allowable subject matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,961,006. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 17 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
Claim 17 is rejected similarly as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,150,973.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,961,006
17. A network device, comprising: a processor; at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a network management logic that is configured to:
receive an indication of an action for the network device from a network controller node, the action being part of a workflow associated with a network configuration task; and attempt to perform the action.
1. A method of orchestrating a workflow, comprising: receiving a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that defines a plurality of computer network configuration tasks to be executed to configure a computer networking environment and a plurality of orders between the plurality of tasks, wherein the DAG includes the plurality of tasks and a plurality of connections that connect pairs of tasks within the plurality of tasks; generating a State-Machine Neural Network (SNN) based on the received DAG, comprising: generating a plurality of SNN neurons for the SNN, based on the plurality of computer network configuration tasks within the received DAG, each of the plurality of SNN neurons relating to at least one configuration task for the computer networking environment and comprising a Finite State Machine (FSM) storing a state for the respective SNN neuron and used to determine state changes for the respective neuron according to one or more inputs, comprising: determining a state transition for the respective neuron, using a state transition function, based on the one or more inputs to the respective neuron and the stored state for the respective neuron; and generating one or more outputs from the respective neuron using an activation function and based on the determined state transition; and generating a plurality of SNN connections for the SNN, connecting pairs of SNN neurons within the plurality of SNN neurons, based on the plurality of connections within the received DAG, wherein connecting pairs of SNN neurons comprises connecting pairs of FSMs each determining a state change based on both one or more inputs and a stored state; and executing the SNN to configure a plurality of networking devices within the computer networking environment by sending and receiving events to and from the SNN neurons.
---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-13, 16-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desai et al. (2021/0234898).
As per claim 1, Desai et al. teaches a network controller node, comprising: a processor; at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a network management logic that is configured to: receive an indication of a network configuration task from a user node [paragraph 0020];
generate a workflow by translating the network configuration task into a distinct, intermediate sequence of one or more actions for one or more network devices, each action in the one or more actions being associated with a network device in the one or more network devices; and
cause the one or more network devices to attempt to perform the one or more actions based on the generated workflow [paragraph 0070 and Table 1].
As per claim 4, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 1, wherein the network management logic is further configured to receive, from a network device in the one or more network devices, an indication of a failure to perform an action associated with the network device at the network device [paragraph 0116].
As per claim 5, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 4, wherein the network management logic is further configured to: identify a remedial action for the network device based on the indication of the failure; and transmit an indication of the remedial action to the network device [paragraph 0116].
As per claim 6, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 1, wherein the network configuration task includes creation of a virtual network [paragraph 0024].
As per claim 7, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 6, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow include: selecting an autonomous system number (ASN) for an ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) configuration; adding a loopback device for a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) tunnel endpoint (VTEP) device; assigning one or more internet protocol (IP) addresses to the loopback device; adding a virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) configuration; and configuring one or more switched virtual interfaces (SVIs) [paragraphs 0209-0210].
As per claim 8, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 7, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow further include adding one or more ports to an underlay network [paragraph 0036].
As per claim 9, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 1, wherein the network configuration task includes deletion of a virtual network [paragraph 0035].
As per claim 10, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 9, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow include: removing one or more internet protocol (IP) addresses from a loopback device; deleting the loopback device; and releasing an assigned autonomous system number (ASN) [paragraph 0210].
As per claim 11, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 10, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow further include removing one or more ports from an underlay network [paragraph 0037].
As per claim 12, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 1, wherein the network configuration task includes addition of one or more hosts to a virtual network [paragraph 0036].
As per claim 13, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 12, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow include: adding one or more virtual local area networks (VLANs) to a system associated with the virtual network; disabling an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) link-local configuration on one or more physical ports connected to the one or more hosts; and adding the one or more VLANs to the one or more physical ports [paragraphs 0083-0084].
As per claim 16, Desai et al. teaches the network controller node of claim 15, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow further include reenabling an internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) link-local configuration on the one or more physical ports [paragraph 0164].
As per claim 17, Desai et al. teaches a network device, comprising: a processor; at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a network management logic that is configured to:
receive an indication of an action for the network device from a network controller node, the action being part of a workflow associated with a network configuration task wherein the workflow is generated by the network controller node by translating the network configuration task into a distinct, intermediate sequence of one or more actions; and
attempt to perform the action [paragraphs 0020, 0070 and Table 1].
As per claim 19, Desai et al. teaches the network device of claim 17, wherein the network management logic is further configured to: identify a failure to perform the action based on the attempt to perform the action; transmit an indication of the failure to perform the action to the network controller node; receive an indication of a remedial action from the network controller node based on the indication of the failure to perform the action; and attempt to perform the remedial action based on the indication of the remedial action [paragraphs 0115-0116].
Claim 20 has similar limitations as to claim 1 above therefore it is being rejected under the same rationale.
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) 2-3, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai et al. (2021/0234898) in view of Angrish et al. (10,205,638).
As per claim 2, Desai et al. teaches limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Angrish et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein to cause the one or more network devices to attempt to perform the one or more actions, the network management logic is further configured to transmit, for each action, a corresponding command to an associated network device [Angrish et al., col. 4, ll. 6-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Desai et al. with Angrish et al. in order to configuring network topologies through the use of cloud computing resources.
As per claim 3, Desai-Angrish teaches the network controller node of claim 2, wherein the corresponding command is associated with a corresponding configuration, and the network management logic is further configured to transmit, for each action, the corresponding configuration to the associated network device [Angrish et al., col. 4, ll. 49-65].
As per claim 14, Desai-Angrish teaches the network controller node of claim 1, wherein the network configuration task includes removal of one or more hosts from a virtual network [Angrish et al., col. 6, ll. 10-21].
As per claim 15, Desai-Angrish teaches the network controller node of claim 14, wherein the one or more actions in the generated workflow include: removing one or more virtual local area networks (VLANs) from one or more physical ports connected with the one or more hosts; and removing the one or more VLANs from a system associated with the virtual network [Angrish et al., col. 7, ll. 47-61].
As per claim 18, Desai-Angrish teaches the network device of claim 17, wherein the indication of the action for the network device comprises a command or a configuration [Angrish et al., col. 9, ll. 34-43].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444