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 .
1. Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-24 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 are amended as filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are canceled as filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 21-24 are new as filed on 10/15/2025.
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) 1-7, 9-17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2015/0188823 A1), hereinafter Williams, in view of Hegde et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0353168 A1), hereinafter Hegde, and in further view of Cherkas (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0328893 A1).
2. With respect to claims 11, 1, and 21, Wiliams taught a system comprising: one or more cloud computing platforms comprising a plurality of regional clouds (0005, where the regional networks operate on the cloud in accordance with 0064); a plurality of edge clusters on the one or more cloud computing platforms (0084 & figure 3, where the edge region is an edge cluster), each edge cluster being located in a different regional cloud of the one or more cloud computing platforms (0005, where the communication between networks can be seen in 0037-0038); and a network orchestrator coupled to the plurality of edge clusters (0030, where at least, the NOCC is a network orchestrator).
However, Williams did not explicitly state receiving, by a computing device, a network object indicating a) an identifier of a network resource of the one or more cloud computing platforms, b) identifiers of entities that can request access to the identified network resource, c) permissions of how the entities can access the network resource, and d) network connectivity comprising identifiers of other network resources connected to the network resource represented by the network object; and a first of the plurality of edge clusters determining whether a request for the network resource from a requesting entity is authorized or unauthorized based on determining whether the requesting entity is identified in b) and whether an action of the request is permitted according to c), wherein the action comprises one of connecting to the network resource, instantiating an application on the network resource, and accessing an application executing in the network resource. On the other hand, Hegde did teach receiving, by a computing device, a network object (0010, the container) indicating a) an identifier of a network resource of the one or more cloud computing platforms (0011, the container address), b) identifiers of entities that can request access to the identified network resource (0056, the access requirements), c) permissions of how the entities can access the network resource (0056, the permissions), and d) network connectivity comprising identifiers of other network resources connected to the network resource represented by the network object (0056, the connected devices); and a first of the plurality of edge clusters determining whether a request for the network resource from a requesting entity is authorized or unauthorized based on determining whether the requesting entity is identified in b) and whether an action of the request is permitted according to c), wherein the action comprises one of connecting to the network resource, instantiating an application on the network resource, and accessing an application executing in the network resource (0031, where the instantiation can be seen in 0010, and where the edge devices can be seen in 0058). Both of the systems of Williams and Hegde are directed towards managing cloud resources and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize a data object containing configuration information, as taught by Hegde, in order to use efficient programming techniques to effectuate the network configurations.
However, Williams did not explicitly state configuring, by the computing device, the plurality of edge clusters with the network object, wherein configuring the plurality of edge clusters with the network object comprises updating routing tables of the plurality of edge clusters according to (a) and (d) and updating policies of the plurality of edge clusters according to (b) and (c). On the other hand, Cherkas did teach configuring, by the computing device, the plurality of edge clusters with the network object, wherein configuring the plurality of edge clusters with the network object comprises updating routing tables of the plurality of edge clusters according to (a) and (d) and updating policies of the plurality of edge clusters according to (b) and (c) (0031, where the VPC being an edge cluster was previously shown by Williams: 0086). Both of the systems of Williams and Cherkas are directed towards managing cloud resources and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize updating a routing table, as taught by Cherkas, in order to use efficient programming techniques to effectuate the network configurations. Furthermore, Williams and Hegde likely teach said features but it is simply, not explicitly stated.
3. As for claims 2 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more cloud computing platforms are multiple cloud computing platforms and the one or more network resources are multiple network resources of the multiple cloud computing platforms (0086, the multiple hosts).
4. As for claims 3 and 13, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more network resources are internet protocol addresses (0036).
5. As for claims 4 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more network resources are subnetworks (0064).
6. As for claims 5 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more network resources are virtual networks (0086, the VPN).
7. As for claims 9 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more entities include at least one of a user account, group of users, business unit, or user endpoints within a geographic area (0037, where this, at least teaches the user endpoint limitation).
8. As for claims 10 and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 11 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the one or more entities include at least one of an application, a database, a storage resource, or a management tool (0031, where this, at least, teaches the application limitation. See also: the databases of 0095).
9. As for claims 23 and 24, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 11 and 21 (respectively). In addition, Williams taught wherein the plurality of edge clusters form a fabric to manage applications hosted on the one or more cloud computing platforms (0086, where an edge region can form a fabric to manage one or more applications under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, in view of Hegde, in view of Cherkas, and in further view of Vaidya et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0076685 A1), hereinafter Vaidya.
10. As for claims 8, 18, and 21, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 11, and 22 (respectively). However, the combination of Williams and Cherkas did not explicitly state receiving, by the computing device, an instruction to delete the network object; in response to the instruction to delete the network object performing, by the computing device: configuring the plurality of edge clusters to cease implementing routing of packets according to d); and configuring the plurality of edge clusters to cease granting access to the one or more network resources according to b) and c). On other hand, Vaidya did teach receiving, by the computing device, an instruction to delete the network object; in response to the instruction to delete the network object performing, by the computing device: configuring the plurality of edge clusters to cease implementing routing of packets according to d); and configuring the plurality of edge clusters to cease granting access to the one or more network resources according to b) and c) (0050 & 0122, where the object specifically being a configuration object was previously shown by Cherkas: 0043). Both of the systems of Williams and Vaidya are directed towards managing communication between remote networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Williams, to utilize removing an object, as taught by Vaidya, in order to properly maintain the most up-to-date configuration information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443