DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1, “claim 30” needs to be amended to -- claim 23 --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,003,380 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 21 and 34 of the application with claim 1, 11, and 19 of the patent, claims 21 and 34 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 11, and 19 in that claim 1, 11, and 19 of the patent contain all the limitations of claims 21 and 34 of the application. Claims 21 and 34 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are allowable over the prior art of record once a TD is filed to overcome the ODP rejection.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicants have claimed uniquely distinct features in the application, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in combination. The independent claims identify the following uniquely distinct features:
I. The primary reason for the allowance of the claims are the inclusion of the limitation in the claims which are not found in the prior art references. The following claim elements “the virtual computer network implements the logical network topology specified by the configuration information; generate, based at least part on the configuration information, a routing table for the virtual computer network, wherein the routing table includes Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) routing information for routing communications to or from the virtual computer network; and route communications in the virtual computer network according to the routing table.” together with the other elements are the reasons for allowance.
1. Regarding claim 21 - A system, comprising: one or more computing systems that implements a configurable network service, configure to: receive configuration information for a virtual computer network to be configured on a substrate network, wherein the substrate network includes a physical network at a data center of a telecommunications infrastructure provider, and the configuration information specifies a logical network topology of the virtual configure the virtual computer network according to the configuration information, wherein the virtual computer network includes a plurality of computing nodes implemented as virtual machines hosted on physical hosts of the substrate network, and the virtual computer network implements the logical network topology specified by the configuration information, generate, based at least part on the configuration information, a routing table for the virtual computer network, wherein the routing table includes Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) routing information for routing communications to or from the virtual computer network, and route communications in the virtual computer network according to the routing table.
2. Regarding claim 34 – A method, comprising: performing, by a configurable network service implemented by one or more computing systems: receiving configuration information for a virtual computer network to be configured on a substrate network, wherein the substrate network includes a physical network at a data center of a telecommunications infrastructure provider, and the configuration information specifies a logical network topology of the virtual computer network, configuring the virtual computer network according to the configuration information, wherein the virtual computer network includes a plurality of computing nodes implemented as virtual machines hosted on physical hosts of the substrate network, and the virtual computer network implements the logical network topology specified by the configuration information; generating, based at least part on the configuration information, a routing table for the virtual computer network, wherein the routing table includes Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) routing information for routing communications to or from the virtual computer network, and routing communications in the virtual computer network according to the routing table.
The closest prior art, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Choudhry (US 6,442,602 B1) discloses system and method for dynamic creation and management of virtual subdomain addresses.
2. Sarkar et al. (US 7,639,632 B2) discloses system and method for managing and provisioning virtual routers.
3. Suriyanarayanan (US 7,974,211 B2) discloses methods and apparatus for network configuration baselining and restoration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. 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, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
7 October 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2429
Prosecution Insights