DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the original filing of April 30, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,108,884 B1, claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,580 B1, and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,473 B1.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1-20 is/are generic to all that is recited in claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,108,884 B1, claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,580 B1, and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,473 B1. That is, claim(s) 1-20 is/are anticipated by claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,108,884 B1, claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,722,580 B1, and claim(s) 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,473 B1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 2017/0223093 A1, hereinafter Peterson).
As to Claim 1, Peterson discloses a method comprising:
receiving with a load balancer in a cloud service provider infrastructure (CSPI) a client request from a client device to perform an operation on an appliance in a customer data center ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.);
identifying an established server having an established connection with the appliance in the customer data center ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0101-0102, 0110]), where Peterson discloses establishing a connection between the devices.); and
communicating the client request to the appliance in the customer data center via the established server ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0102-0103, 0111]), where Peterson discloses communicating the request to the appliance.).
As to Claim 2, Peterson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
the load balancer selecting a processing server for processing the client request ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.); and forwarding the client request to the processing server ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0102-0103, 0111, 0114]), where Peterson discloses communicating the request to the appliance.).
As to Claim 3, Peterson discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving the client request with the processing server ((Peterson; Figs. 4-5; [0110]), where Peterson discloses receiving the service request.); and inspecting the client request with the processing server to identify the appliance and a data center corresponding to the client request ((Peterson; Figs. 4-5; [0111-0112, 0115]), where Peterson discloses handling/processing the request.).
As to Claim 4, Peterson discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising storing information identifying the established connection between the established server and the appliance in the customer data center (Peterson; [0094-0095, 0106]).
As to Claim 5, Peterson discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the established server is one of a cluster of servers in the CSPI (Peterson; Fig. 1).
As to Claim 6, Peterson discloses the method of claim , wherein the information identifying the established connection between the established server and the appliance in the customer data center is stored in a distributed cache accessible by the cluster of servers (Peterson; [0094-0095, 0106, 0162]).
As to Claim 7, Peterson discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the processing server identifies the established server as having the established connection with the appliance in the customer data center based on the stored information (Peterson; [0094-0095, 0106]).
As to Claim 8, Peterson discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising generating with the processing server a redirect response redirecting the client request from the processing server to the established server (Peterson; Figs. 6, 9; [0089, 0098, 0118]).
As to Claim 9, Peterson discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising the load balancer sending the client request to the established server subsequent to the redirect response ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.).
As to Claim 10, Peterson discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising receiving the client request from the load balancer at the established server ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.).
As to Claim 11, Peterson discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the client request comprises a second client request generated by the client device in response to the redirect response (Peterson; Fig. 6; [0122, 0128]).
As to Claim 12, Peterson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the load balancer sending the client request to the established server subsequent to the redirect response comprises: the load balancer receiving the second client request from the client device; and the load balancer forwarding the second client request to the established server ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.)
As to Claim 13, Peterson discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the load balancer forwards the second client request to the established server based on endpoint identification information contained in the second client request ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.)
As to Claim 14, Peterson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the endpoint identification information comprises information identifying a path to the established server ((Peterson; [0102, 0103]), where Peterson disclose identifying the server to perform the request.).
As to Claim 15, Peterson discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising sending the client request from the established server to the appliance within the customer data center ((Peterson; [0102, 0103]), where Peterson disclose identifying the server to perform the request.).
As to Claim 16, Peterson discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising determining based on the stored information that the processing server has the established connection with the appliance in the customer data center (Peterson; [0094-0095, 0106, 0162]).
As to Claim 17, Peterson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the customer data center is an on-premise data center of the customer, wherein the customer subscribes to one or more services provided using the CSPI (Peterson; [0103]).
As to Claim 18, Peterson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors, the plurality of instructions comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform processing comprising:
receive with a load balancer in a cloud service provider infrastructure (CSPI) a client request from a client device to perform an operation on an appliance in a customer data center ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.);
identify an established server having an established connection with the appliance in the customer data center ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0101-0102, 0110]), where Peterson discloses establishing a connection between the devices.); and
communicate the client request to the appliance in the customer data center via the established server ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0102-0103, 0111]), where Peterson discloses communicating the request to the appliance.).
As to Claim 19, Peterson discloses the non-transitory computer-readable memory of claim 18, wherein the customer data center is an on-premise data center of the customer, wherein the customer subscribes to one or more services provided using the CSPI (Peterson; [0103]).
As to Claim 20, Peterson discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors (Peterson; Fig. 12); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory storing a plurality of instructions executable by the one or more processors, the plurality of instructions comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors (Peterson; Fig. 12) to perform processing comprising:
receive with a load balancer in a cloud service provider infrastructure (CSPI) a client request from a client device to perform an operation on an appliance in a customer data center ((Peterson; [0103]), where Peterson discloses in a cloud based environment, performing load balance operations based on the received requested on an appliance.);
identify an established server having an established connection with the appliance in the customer data center ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0101-0102, 0110]), where Peterson discloses establishing a connection between the devices.); and
communicate the client request to the appliance in the customer data center via the established server ((Peterson; Figs. 1 & 4; [0102-0103, 0111]), where Peterson discloses communicating the request to the appliance.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M THIEU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7475 and fax number is (571) 270-8475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at (571) 272-7952. 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.
/BENJAMIN M THIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441 2.13.2026