DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on March 23rd, 2026.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1~20 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.
Double Patenting
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 12,052,313 and claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 11,601,496. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above substantially teaches and anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application. See the previous rejection for comparison of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellagamba et al. hereinafter Bellagamba (U.S 2016/0164832) in view of Comeras et al. hereinafter Comeras (U.S 2016/0119196), Ashtaputre et al. hereinafter Ashtaputre (U.S 2020/0162282) and further in view of NPL: “Enhanced LISP Mapping System for Optimizing Service Path in Edge Computing Environment” hereinafter Sun (10/19/20 publication).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15,
Bellagamba taught a method implemented by a cloud control plane, the method comprising:
receiving, from a public cloud site and using an enhanced protocol, first data including first services provided via the public cloud site and first capabilities associated with the first services [¶34, Fig. 2, enterprise side 72 of the system 70 includes a proxy ingress/egress tunnel router (“PxTR”) 74 having two or more locally-defined subnets accessible via internal interfaces 76A, 74B, of the PxTR. Interface 76A provides connectivity to a first one of the locally-defined subnets (“Subnet A”) and interface 74B provides connectivity to a second one of the locally-defined subnets (“Subnet B”). A service provider (“SP”) side 78 of the system 70 (which may comprise a cloud SP) includes one or more ingress/egress tunnel routers (“xTRs”) 80, 82; ¶37; ¶38];
aggregating the first services and the second services to generate aggregated data [¶29, aggregate network wide information before handing it over to a network management entity];
storing, in a database, the aggregated data [¶44, Fig. 5, step 146, create dynamic database mapping with loopback as local RLOC];
sending a first service publication to the public cloud site, the first service publication including at least a portion of the aggregated data [¶36, LISP-based secure hybrid cloud extension 92 by “stretching,” or extending, designated locally-defined subnets (e.g., Subnet A and Subnet B) to remote sites (e.g., xTRs 80 and 82). Information contained in the message triggered by the lisp-stretch command enables each of xTRs 80, 82, to auto-resolve its LISP configuration, thereby enabling establishment of a secure hybrid cloud extension automatically and autonomically on the SP side 78].
Bellagamba did not specifically teach receiving, from a private cloud site and using the enhanced protocol, second data including second services provided via the private cloud site and second capabilities associated with the second services; sending a second service publication to the private cloud site associated with a host device, the second service publication including at least a second portion of the aggregated data; and sending a third service publication to a site associated with a host device, the third service publication including at least a third portion of the aggregated data
Comeras taught receiving, from a private cloud site and using the enhanced protocol, second data including second services provided via the private cloud site and second capabilities associated with the second services [¶24, datacenters 95(1) and 95(2) may represent public or private clouds, or combinations of both in hybrid cloud extensions of a datacenter];
sending a second service publication to the private cloud site associated with a host device, the second service publication including at least a second portion of the aggregated data [¶25, Fig. 2, the Internet routers 60 may have attached MSMRs 80(1) and 80(2) that may also be connected or located elsewhere in Network 55. MSMRs 80 are part of a mapping system infrastructure that guarantees updated mapping and network topology information and synchronization among devices].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Comeras’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Bellagamba, because the combination enables and extends multipath protocol efficiencies when the end-to-end communication function is not controlled by a single vendor or entity [Comeras: ¶23].
Bellagamba-Comeras did not specifically teach sending a third service publication to a site associated with a host device, the third service publication including at least a third portion of the aggregated data.
Ashtaputre taught sending a third service publication to a site associated with a host device, the third service publication including at least a third portion of the aggregated data [¶24, specifying local extranet policies between locally connected Virtual Networks to allow sharing of routes among locally connected Virtual Networks; ¶57, if the subnet 10.10.10.0/24 is provisioned in a given fabric site, this subnet may be defined across all of the fabric edge nodes 726 in that fabric site, and endpoints located in that subnet can be placed on any fabric edge node 726 in that fabric; ¶77, the host tracking database can track the endpoints 730 connected to the network fabric 720 and associate the endpoints to the fabric edge nodes 726].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Ashtaputre’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Bellagamba and Comeras, because the combination provides on demand and/or pre-provisioned access to a multitude of Service Providers from within an overlay fabric [Ashtaputre: ¶23].
The combination of Bellagamba, Comeras, and Ashtaputre did not specifically teach on-demand protocol having service registration enhancement and aggregating information regarding the first services and the second services.
Sun* taught on-demand protocol having service registration enhancement and aggregating information regarding the first services and the second services (Pg. 190561, the SID is a newly defined ID type, which is an EID assigned to a service that can be deployed and shared with equivalent services; Pg. 190564, using the SID mapping table that manages the RLOC list of services, the optimal equivalent service instance at the current location can be selected rapidly while registering new mapping information in the eLISP-MS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Sun’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Bellagamba, Comeras, and Ashtaputre, because the combination provide an optimal service path to mobile users through fewer message exchanges and less delay than existing approaches [Sun: abstract].
Regarding Claim 2,
Bellagamba-Comeras taught wherein storing further includes storing the first data and the second data, and wherein the first data further includes first IP addresses, first SGT bindings, and first datacenter (DC) prefixes, and wherein the second data includes second IP addresses, second SGT bindings, and second DC prefixes [Bellagamba: ¶37; ¶38; Comeras: ¶16, MSMR 40]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 3,
Bellagamba-Comeras taught wherein the first service publication comprises at least the first services, the second services, the first IP addresses, the second IP addresses, the first SGT bindings, the second SGT bindings, the first DC prefixes, and the second DC prefixes [Bellagamba: ¶37; ¶38; Comeras: ¶16, MSMR 40]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 4,
Bellagamba-Comeras-Ashtaputre taught wherein the site corresponds to an access control site comprising an SDA, an SDN site, or an extended access wireless network [¶36, extending Subnet A and Subnet B; Ashtaputre: C21: 40~49)]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 5,
Bellagamba taught wherein the first data is received from the public cloud site using a smartNIC server [¶36, SP side 78].
Regarding Claim 6,
Bellagamba taught wherein the first capabilities or the second capabilities are associated with protocols enabled on servers within the public cloud site or the private cloud site [¶53, appropriate algorithms and communication protocols that allow for the effective exchange of data or information].
Regarding Claim 7,
Bellagamba-Comeras taught wherein the public cloud site comprises at least one data center server associated with a service provided by a service provider [¶34, SP side 78 comprise a cloud SP; Comeras: ¶24, datacenters 95(1) and 95(2)]. The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Regarding Claims 8~20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~7 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights