DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
General Information Matter
Please note, the instant Non-Provisional application (18/541,382) under prosecution at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been assigned to David Zarka (Examiner) in Art Unit 2449. To aid in correlating any papers for 18/541,382, all further correspondence regarding the instant application should be directed to the Examiner.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDSs filed December 15, 2023 and June 16, 2025 each comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The IDSs have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) recites “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed.”
Fig. 2, items 202, 214, 218, 232, 236, 238; Fig. 3, items 302, 314, 330, 332, 340; Fig. 4, items 402, 414, 422, 424, 432; Fig. 5, items 502, 514, 522, 524, 538; Fig. 6, items 602, 614, 630, 632, 640 are reference characters that do not indicate a surface or cross section on which they are placed. Thus, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(q) for failing to include lead lines for each reference character.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Applicants are advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the USPTO does not prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicants will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (e.g., “Cisco” at Spec. ¶ 2) has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as TM, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
This is not an objection to the Specification.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Che, Antoo, and King
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che et al. (US 2008/0215752 A1; filed May 16, 2008) in view of Antoo et al. (US 2016/0140520 A1; filed Nov. 18, 2014), and in further view of King et al. (US 2022/0263789 A1; filed Feb. 12, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, while Che teaches a computer-implemented method (fig. 3) for differentiated multi-segmented cloud security (intended use in italics; see MPEP § 2111.02), comprising:
receiving, by an edge router (fig. 3, item R1), from a tenant (fig. 3, item S1) of a multi-tenanted network (“The network includes service servers S1, S2, and S3, a service information center I, service routers R1 and R2, a service control center C and a service translator T.” at ¶ 23) a request (fig. 3, item 301) to access a service (fig. 3, item S2) (intended use in italics);
accessing, by the edge router, one or more reference tables (“In step 303, the service information center I [sic] finds the corresponding physical address, that is, the IP address and port of the service server S2 that can provide the service requested by the service server S1” at ¶ 52);
transmitting, by the edge router, the request to the
receiving, at the edge router, a response (fig. 3, item 305) from the
transmitting, by the edge router, the response to the tenant of the multi-tenanted network according to the one or more reference tables (fig. 3, item 306; “according to” in the sense the transmitting would not occur but for first accessing the one or more reference tables),
Che does not teach (A) the service being a Secured Internet Gateway (SIG) associated with a cloud provider; and (B) adding, by the edge router, one or more hash entries to the one or more reference tables, wherein the one or more hash entries includes one or more identifiers associated with the request (and thus the transmitting the response being according to one or more hash entries of the one or more reference tables).
(A)
Antoo teaches a Secured Internet Gateway (SIG) (“the systems and processes can be implemented through secured data gateway services” at ¶ 23) associated with a cloud provider (“cloud service provider” at ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s service to be an SIG associated with a cloud provider as taught by Antoo “such that network traffic can be securely transmitted.” Antoo ¶ 16.
(B)
King teaches adding1, by a device (“NVD” at ¶ 170; fig. 6, item 608), one or more hash entries (“generate a hash value by hashing the contents of certain fields” at ¶ 176) to one or more reference tables (“multiple physical IP addresses that are mapped to the destination overlay IP address” and “multiple physical IP addresses mapped to the overlay IP address” at ¶ 176), wherein the one or more hash entries includes one or more identifiers (“certain fields of the received packet and then determine a particular physical IP address” and “contents of the fields” at ¶ 176) associated with a request (“client 606 requests access to the service” at ¶ 169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s edge router to add one or more hash entries to the one or more reference tables, wherein the one or more hash entries includes one or more identifiers associated with the request (and thus the transmitting the response being according to one or more hash entries of the one or more reference tables) as taught by King “ensur[ing] that packets belonging to a network flow land at and are handled by the same server compute instance.” King ¶ 177.
Regarding claim 5, while Che teaches wherein the one or more reference tables (“In step 303, the service information center I [sic] finds the corresponding physical address, that is, the IP address and port of the service server S2 that can provide the service requested by the service server S1” at ¶ 52) are maintained for a network (“The network includes service servers S1, S2, and S3, a service information center I, service routers R1 and R2, a service control center C and a service translator T.” at ¶ 23) transmitting the request (fig. 3, item 301) to the
Che does not teach (A) the service being an SIG service; and (B) the network being a transport virtual provide network (VPN).
(A)
Antoo teaches an SIG service (“the systems and processes can be implemented through secured data gateway services” at ¶ 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s service to be an SIG as taught by Antoo “such that network traffic can be securely transmitted.” Antoo ¶ 16.
(B)
King teaches a transport VPN (“Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)” at ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s network to be a transport VPN as taught by King “to ensure high availability and to protect against resource failure.” King ¶ 58.
Regarding claim 9, Che teaches a system (fig. 3) comprising: one or more processors (Che at least suggests the system illustrated in fig. 3 comprises one or more processors); and a memory (Che at least suggests the system illustrated in fig. 3 comprises a memory) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configured the system to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, claim 5 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, Che teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Che at least suggests the system illustrated in fig. 3 comprises a memory), the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer (Che at least suggests the system illustrated in fig. 3 comprises a computer), cause the computer to perform operations according to claim 1. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 17.
Che, Antoo, King, and Mehta
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che in view of Antoo, in further view of King, and in further view of Mehta et al. (US 2014/0198794 A1; filed Jan. 8, 2014).
Regarding claim 2, while Che teaches wherein the request is transmitted through an inherent connection (fig. 3, item 301),
Che does not teach wherein the inherent connection being a unique transport tunnel, and the one or more identifiers include at least a source Internet Protocol (IP) address and a transport tunnel identifier.
Mehta teaches a unique transport tunnel (“tunnel type (GRE, IP-in-IP, IPSec, SSL or L2TPv3)” at ¶ 48), and
one or more identifiers include at least a source Internet Protocol (IP) address (fig. 11, items 1115, 1140) and a transport tunnel identifier.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s inherent connection to be a unique transport tunnel and for the Che/Antoo/King combination’s one or more identifiers to include at least a source Internet Protocol (IP) address and a transport tunnel identifier as taught by Mehta “for providing the quality of service (QoS) and guaranteed failover time for these services.” Mehta ¶ 3.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, claim 2 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 10 and 18.
Che, Antoo, King, and Shaw
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che in view of Antoo, in further view of King, and in further view of Shaw et al. (US 2008/0310326 A1; filed Aug. 14, 2008).
Regarding claim 3, while Che teaches wherein the request is transmitted through an inherent connection (fig. 3, item 301),
Che does not teach the inherent connection being a high availability (HA) transport tunnel pair, and the one or more identifiers include at least an HA transport tunnel pair identifier.
Shaw teaches high availability (HA) transport tunnel pair (fig. 5B illustrates HA transport tunnel pairs including “T1 on R1” and “T2 on R1”; Fig. 5C, items A–D; “tunnel pairs A-D” at ¶ 39), and
one or more identifiers include at least an HA transport tunnel pair identifier (“identification of tunnel pairs” at ¶ 38; fig. 5B illustrates identification of tunnel pairs including “T1 on R1,” “T2 on R1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s inherent connection to be an HA transport tunnel pair and for the Che/Antoo/King combination’s one or more identifiers to include at least an HA transport tunnel pair identifier as taught by Shaw “to improve the network’s performance.” Shaw ¶ 41.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, claim 3 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 11 and 19.
Che, Antoo, King, and Ishibashi
Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che in view of Antoo, in further view of King, and in further view of Ishibashi et al. (US 2003/0147352 A1; filed Jan. 31, 2003).
Regarding claim 4, while Che teaches wherein the request is transmitted through an inherent connection (fig. 3, item 301), and the one or more reference tables include IP addresses and ports (“In step 303, the service information center I [sic] finds the corresponding physical address, that is, the IP address and port of the service server S2 that can provide the service requested by the service server S1” at ¶ 52),
Che does not teach the inherent connection being a common transport tunnel and the IP addresses and ports being a port entry translate table.
Ishibashi teaches a common transport tunnel (fig. 4 illustrates tunnels by “TUNNEL ID”) and
a port entry translate table (“the detected port entry of the port table” at ¶ 139; fig. 14B, item S154; fig. 15, item S161).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s inherent connection to be a common transport tunnel and for Che’s IP addresses and ports to be a port entry translate table as taught by Ishibashi “to provide a path establishment method for accommodating paths of a plurality of different fault recovery types in a single communications network.” Ishibashi ¶ 14.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, claim 4 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 4 are equally applicable to claims 12 and 20.
Che, Antoo, King, and Pazhayakath
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che in view of Antoo, in further view of King, and in further view of Pazhayakath et al. (US 2014/0334491 A1; filed Apr. 3, 2014).
Regarding claim 6, Che does not teach wherein the one or more hash entries are removed from the one or more reference tables after a duration of time.
Pazhayakath teaches removing data from a table after a duration of time (“a step of removing the signature function data from the hash table after a pre-determined time interval elapses (Step 322).” at ¶ 33; fig. 3, item 322).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s one or more hash entries to be removed from the one or more reference tables after a duration of time as taught by Pazhayakath to “promote[[s]] increased throughput performance and promote[[s]] reduction in end-to-end packet delay.” Pazhayakath ¶ 39.
Regarding claim 14, claim 6 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 14.
Che, Antoo, King, and Vohra
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Che in view of Antoo, in further view of King, and in further view of Vohra (US 2002/0176134 A1; filed Dec. 20, 2001).
Regarding claim 7, Che does not teach wherein the one or more hash entries are added to the one or more reference tables using a multiplexer.
Vohra teaches adding two elements using a multiplexer (“The channels can be added, i.e. multiplexed, using a commercially available multiplexer” at ¶ 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Che’s one or more hash entries and one or more reference tables to be added using a multiplexer as taught by Vohra for “better performance of the network.” Vohra ¶ 15.
Regarding claim 15, claim 7 recites substantially similar features. Thus, references/arguments equivalent to those present for claim 7 are equally applicable to claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20130060929-A1; US-20210409303-A1; US-20210399920-A1; US-20120246716-A1; US-20180359322-A1; US-20070008974-A1; and US-20190230189-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to 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, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
1 The Examiner interprets “adding” to mean “to join or unite so as to bring about an increase or improvement.” “add,” Merriam-Webster.com, 2026 (available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/add).