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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 04/25/2024.
Applicant amended claims 4, 7, 19, and 20 in the preliminary amendment. Claims 17-18 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 present for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 04/26/2024 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, and 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 11, “may be” should read “is”;
Claim 8, line 9, “may be” should read “is”;
Claims 10 and 13 use acronyms without stating what the acronyms stand for or represent. For example, claim 10 recites “UDP” in line 8. It should read “user datagram protocol (UDP)”. This needs to be done for each first occurrence of an acronym in the Claims.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “an application access flow” should read “the application access flow”;
Claim 11, lines 6-7, “the forwarding mode” should read “the application forwarding mode”;
Claim 12, line 2, “the forwarding mode” should read “the application forwarding mode”;
Claim 14, line 2, “the forwarding mode” should read “the application forwarding mode”;
Claim 15, lines 2-3, “the local service discovery port” should read “the configured local service discovery port”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between newly registered edge node and each edge node, between newly registered edge node and current cluster. This renders the claim unclear because the only edge node recited in the claim is the newly registered edge node and the claim recites “each edge node” which implies more than one edge node. The relationship between the newly registered edge node, multiple edge nodes, and current cluster need to be defined in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “in response to the node discovery result indicating that no node is discovered” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. The claim limitation recites “perform node discovery on each edge node in a current cluster” in line 4-5, it is unclear what “no node” is referring to. Same rejection applies to claims 10 and 19.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the local area networks" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claims 10 and 19.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in lines 16-17, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component. Same rejection applies to claims 10 and 19.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the service discovery port of the node proxy component of each edge node in the cluster ode list" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation recites “the local area network” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the local area network” is referring to “a local area network where the newly registered edge node is located” in claim 1, lines 7-8, or “a current existing local area network” in claim 1, line 8, or to a different/distinct local area network.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 2, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the same local area network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Regarding claim 7, claim limitation recites “the node proxy component” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node proxy component” is referring to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 4, or to “a node proxy component” in claim 1, line 16, or to a different/distinct node proxy component.
Regarding claim 8, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 1, line 17, or to “an application access flow” in claim 8, line 2, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the node proxy component in the destination node" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in lines 4-5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 1, line 17, or to “an application access flow” in claim 8, line 2, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation recites “the node” in line 3, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the node” is referring to “a newly registered edge node” in claim 1, line 4, or to “each edge node” in claim 1, line 5, or to “a node is successfully discovered” in claim 1, line 11, or to “a successfully discovered node” in claim 1, lines 14-15, or to “each node” in claim 9, line 2, or to different/distinct node.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the local area networks" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same local area network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in lines 4-5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the node proxy component of the second application" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the same local area network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the two local area networks" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the node proxy component of the second application" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 8, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the same local area network" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the two local area networks" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 5, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation recites “the cloud proxy component” in line 6, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the cloud proxy component” is referring to “a cloud proxy component” in claim 10, line 5, or to “a cloud proxy component” in claim 14, lines 5-6, or to a different/distinct cloud proxy component.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the node proxy component of the node" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the node proxy component of the second application" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation recites “the application access flow” in line 8, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the application access flow” is referring to “an application access flow” in claim 10, lines 17-18, or to “an application access flow” in claim 11, line 4, or to a different/distinct application access flow.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the local area networks" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, claim limitation recites “the local area network information” in lines 3-4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the local area network information” is referring to “local area network information” in claim 1, line 14, or to “local area network information” in claim 21, line 2, or to different/distinct local area network information.
Regarding claim 21, claim limitation recites “the local area network” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the local area network” is referring to “a local area network where the newly registered edge node is located” in claim 1, lines 7-8, or to “a current exiting local area network” in claim 1, line 8, or to “a local area network where a successfully discovered node is located” in claim 1, lines 14-15, or to “each local area network” in claim 21, line 3, or to different/distinct local area network.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
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, 10, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammer et al. (US 2009/0043911 A1), hereinafter Flammer, in view of Shimoosawa et al. (US 2012/0113977 A1), hereinafter Shimoosawa.
Regarding claim 1, Flammer discloses
An application access method, applied to a cloud proxy component, wherein the application access method comprises:
acquiring a node discovery result, wherein the node discovery result is a node discovery result obtained by a node proxy component in a newly registered edge node (new node) to perform node discovery (initial network discovery scanning process) on each edge node in a current cluster ([0038]: a routing protocol is used in the initial network discovery scanning process by the new node through all slots or channels to get to all (preferably) its neighbors and to get acknowledgement responses and an initial value of link quality estimates to those discovered neighbors);
updating a global routing table based on the intercommunication relationship ([0073]: each node can construct a routing table listing the networks available).
in response to the node discovery result indicating that a node is successfully discovered, associating node information of the newly registered edge node with target local area network information to update the global routing table, wherein the target local area network information is local area network information of a local area network where a successfully discovered node is located ([0039]: registration of a node with its upstream nodes, in the presently preferred embodiment, means that the node intends to use these upstream nodes for egress to another network; in response to registering with the upstream node the upstream node will add the registering downstream node to the downstream routing table entries maintained by the upstream node); and
issuing the global routing table to a node proxy component in each edge node, so that the node proxy component in each edge node forwards an application access flow based on the global routing table to realize application access ([0073]: each node can construct a routing table listing the networks available, the egress node (AP) identifying each of the networks, and the available paths to that egress node; & [0074]: from the routing table information, nodes may construct a forwarding or next-hop table with a list of destination MAC addresses, a type associated with each address, and the path cost for it).
Flammer does not explicitly disclose
in response to the node discovery result indicating that no node is discovered, performing a user datagram protocol (UDP) hole punching operation between a local area network where the newly registered edge node is located and a current existing local area network to obtain an intercommunication relationship between the local area networks.
However, Shimoosawa discloses
in response to the node discovery result indicating that no node is discovered, performing a user datagram protocol (UDP) hole punching operation between a local area network where the newly registered edge node is located and a current existing local area network to obtain an intercommunication relationship between the local area networks ([0112]: UDP hole punching between the LANs 100 and 300).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Shimoosawa in Flammer because Flammer discloses node can construct a routing table listing the networks available ([0073]) and Shimoosawa further suggests UDP hole punching between LANs ([0112]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Shimoosawa in the Flammer system in order to enable a direct connection without requiring complex router configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Flammer and Shimoosawa disclose the application access method as described in claim 1. Flammer further discloses
maintaining a long link with the node proxy component in each edge node ([0039]: the upstream nodes may also proceed to maintain up-to-date timing information about the registering node in response to the registering by the downstream node; & [0059]: utilizes the code entity DLF (Data Link Forwarder) for Layer 2 routing and the code entity MLME (Media Access Control Sub-Layer Management Entity) for acquiring neighbor nodes and maintaining timing information between neighbors).
Regarding claim 9, Flammer and Shimoosawa disclose the application access method as described in claim 1. Flammer further discloses
monitoring addition/deletion information of each node and updating the global routing table of the node ([0039]: in response to registering with the upstream node the upstream node will add the registering downstream node to the downstream routing table entries maintained by the upstream node); and
issuing an updated global routing table of the node to each node proxy component ([0073]: each node can construct a routing table listing the networks available, the egress node (AP) identifying each of the networks, and the available paths to that egress node; & [0074]: from the routing table information, nodes may construct a forwarding or next-hop table with a list of destination MAC addresses, a type associated with each address, and the path cost for it).
Regarding claims 10, 19, and 20, the limitations of claims 10, 19, and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 21, Flammer and Shimoosawa disclose the application access method as described in claim 1. Flammer further discloses
the global routing table comprises local area network information of each local area network in a cluster and the intercommunication relation between the local area networks, and the local area network information comprises each node information in the local area network ([0073]: each node can construct a routing table listing the networks available, the egress node (AP) identifying each of the networks, and the available paths to that egress node; & [0074]: from the routing table information, nodes may construct a forwarding or next-hop table with a list of destination MAC addresses, a type associated with each address, and the path cost for it).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flammer in view of Shimoosawa, and further in view of Suri et al. (US 2010/0131636 A1), hereinafter Suri.
Regarding claim 15, Flammer and Shimoosawa disclose the application access method as described in claim 10. Flammer and Shimoosawa do not explicitly disclose
monitoring a configured local service discovery port, and directing a flow generated by the local service discovery port to a local node proxy component.
However, Suri discloses
monitoring a configured local service discovery port, and directing a flow generated by the local service discovery port to a local node proxy component ([0034]: the load-balancing module monitors the receipt by a virtual switch of incoming network packets for an application program with more than one software port running on a virtual machine with a single registered vNIC; the load-balancing module determines whether particular software ports are becoming heavily loaded or unavailable through the application of a load-balancing (or scheduling) algorithm; the load-balancing module causes the virtual switch to route the incoming network packets to less heavily loaded or available software ports and report the results to a health-monitoring module or to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Suri in Flammer and Shimoosawa because Flammer and Shimoosawa disclose node can construct a routing table listing the networks available (Flammer: [0073]) and Suri further suggests monitoring incoming network packets for an application program with software port ([0034]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Suri in the Flammer and Shimoosawa system in order to provide load-balancing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, 11-14, 16, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims need to be 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 applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 2008/0080490 A1). The port monitoring circuit monitors the state of the first port; the state machine transmits the data packet or the loop test signal input from the first port to the node.
Li et al. (US 2019/0102293 A1). Discover one or more storage devices interconnected with the first storage device, and update a local routing table for the first storage device based on the discovered interconnected storage devices ([0020]).
Osborne (US 2019/0052561 A1). Generate an IP routing table for the AS network (and other connected AS networks or devices) that includes some or all of the received network topology information ([0048]).
Karkkainen et al. (US 2021/0058300 A1). Discover network devices connected to its local network; update a routing table maintained for the given group network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
02/07/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447