CTNF 18/759,606 CTNF 80305 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claims 1-20 are pending . CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102 07-07 AIA 07-07-aia I. 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 – 07-12-fti 07-12 (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language. 07-15-02-fti II. CLAIMS 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by KOPONEN et al* (USPN 8,959,215). *The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference, it constitutes prior art. This rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) of this application and is thus not the invention “by another,” or if the same invention is not being claimed, by an appropriate showing under 37 CFR 1.131(a). Per claim 1, KOPONEN et al teach a method comprising: receiving logical datapath sets from users, the logical datapath sets comprising a first logical datapath set and a second logical datapath set ( col.3 lines 3-38, col.16 lines 25-39—two logical planes, users specify one or more logical data path sets ); mapping the first logical datapath set to a first network element ( col.4 lines 34-67, col.15 lines 7-65—mapping logical data path set to a network element ); configuring the first network element using at least the mapped first logical datapath set, a second user associated with the second logical datapath set being unable to view first logical datapath set ( col.3 lines 3-26—configuring network elements to prevent different users from viewing or controlling each other’s logical data path sets ); maintaining a network information base (NIB), the NIB comprising a first state associated with the first logical datapath set and a second state associated with the second logical datapath set ( col.3 line 18-col.4 line 33—NIB stores the state of the network, logical configuration and logical state for each user specified logical datapath set ); and storing the NIB in a persistent memory ( col.7 lines 31-38—storing the NIB in system memory ). Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 2, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first user associated with the first logical datapath set is unable to view the second logical datapath set ( col.3 lines 3-26—configuring network elements to prevent different users from viewing or controlling each other’s logical data path sets ). Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 3, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the logical datapath sets are received by a network controller ( col.9 lines 21-62, col.18 lines 15-28—controller in network, one controller within the system as the master controller of a given switching element ). Per claim 4, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first logical datapath set comprises a configuration for quality of service (QoS) policies for the network ( col.14 lines 20-23—QOS policy ). Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 5, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a difference between a current state of first network element and the first logical datapath set ( col.16 lines 40-53, col.22 lines 1-10 and 32-54, col.24 lines 35-43—detecting changes between the managed elements and data path sets ). Per claim 6, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the NIB is stored in a distributed database ( col.4 lines 34-51, col.7 lines 43-64—NIB stored in a database ). Claim 16 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 7, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising replicating NIB records in a secondary storage layer ( col.9 lines 8-41—replication of NIB records in secondary storage layer ). Per claim 8, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first network element comprises a virtual switch ( col.18 lines 29-56—network element comprises virtual switches ). Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 9, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first network element comprises a physical network device ( col.12 lines 46-50, col.13 lines 9-11, col.18 lines 34-41—physical hardware, physical network forwarding elements and hardware switches ). Claim 20 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 9, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 10, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the NIB serves as a communication channel for controller instances ( col.8 lines 34-40—using the secondary storage layer as a channel for communicating between the different instances ). Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 10, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Per claim 11, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the first logical datapath set based on load conditions (col.9 lines 50-62—distributing workload to avoid conflicting operations from different controllers, designating the master of a logical data path set). Per claim 12, KOPONEN et al teach the method of claim 1, wherein the NIB comprises records produced by virtualization applications ( col.17 lines 5-40, col.17 line 56-col.18 line 28—virtualization applications ). Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 12, and are therefore rejected under same basis. Conclusion III. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2010/0122175; US 2010/0192207; US 2010/0205479; US 2007/0250608. IV. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm. 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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KRISTIE D SHINGLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/759,606 Page 2 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/759,606 Page 3 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/759,606 Page 4 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/759,606 Page 5 Art Unit: 2453 Application/Control Number: 18/759,606 Page 6 Art Unit: 2453
Prosecution Insights