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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 September 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 08 July 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.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 08 July 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 and Claim 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “receiving, by the first node an identifier”. Here, claim clarity would be improved by amending a comma, “,”, after reciting “the first node”. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “receiving, by the first node an identifier” to “receiving, by the first node, an identifier”. 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 1-30 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 6, 13, 16, 18, 25, 28, and 30, said claims recite “the second nodes”, while simultaneously reciting “a plurality of second nodes in a second cluster”, which renders the claim unclear because the term, “the second nodes”, could potentially refer to either “a plurality of second nodes” or a group of nodes including second nodes where the group of second nodes is different from “the plurality of second nodes”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the second nodes” to “the plurality of second nodes”. For the purpose of examination, the term, “the second nodes”, will be interpreted as a group of second nodes.
Regarding Claims 2-12, Claims 14-24, and Claims 26-36, Claims 2-12, Claims 14-24, and Claims 26-36 are likewise rejected for depending upon Claim 1, Claim 13, and Claim 25 respectively.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites “wherein the identifier is an address of the first node” which renders the claim unclear because the term, “the identifier”, could potentially refer to either “the identifier of the first node” or “an identifier of a node in the second cluster” as recited in Claim 7. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the identifier” of Claim 10 to “the identifier of the first node”. For the purpose of examination, the term, “the identifier”, will be interpreted as either an identifier of a node in the second cluster or an identifier of the first node.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 13-18, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaonkar (US 20190306080 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Gaonkar”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gaonkar discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps (¶46 & Fig. 6, Gaonkar discloses a memory for storing instructions for execution by a processor to cause the computer system to execute a method or perform steps) of:
maintaining, by a first node of a first cluster, a respective first open transport control protocol (TCP) connection with each of a plurality of second nodes in a second cluster (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses maintaining, by a source node 104 of a first cluster via a source router 110, a transport control protocol (TCP) connection with each of a plurality of destination nodes (DNs), 302, 304, 306, and 308, of a second cluster);
maintaining, by a third node of the first cluster, a second open TCP connection with the first node (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses maintaining, by each source node (SN) of the first cluster, a TCP connection with the leader source node 104), wherein the third node is prevented from establishing a TCP connection with any of the plurality of second nodes (¶12 & ¶27 & Fig. 3 ¶57, Gaonkar discloses that each source node (SN) of the first cluster is not directly connected to any of the destination nodes (DNs) of the second cluster. ¶15, Gaonkar further discloses that the second source node, also the leader source node, forwards all traffic for the other nodes in the same cluster); and
sending, by the third node, a message to the second cluster by sending the message to the first node via the second open TCP connection (¶44 & Fig. 5 (508), Gaonkar discloses sending, by any source node of the source nodes of the first cluster, data to the second cluster by sending the data via the source router), wherein the first node is configured to forward the message to one of the second nodes via a corresponding one of the respective first open TCP connections (¶12 & ¶27 & Fig. 3 ¶57, Gaonkar discloses that the source router 110 of a first cluster is configured to provide external connectivity to any one of the destination nodes (DNs) of the second cluster via the TCP-based connection between the source router and the second cluster).
Regarding Claim 2, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Gaonkar further discloses wherein the first node is a leader node that opens the respective first open TCP connection with each of the plurality of second nodes in response to being elected as a leader in the first cluster (¶15, Gaonkar discloses that the leader source node establishes connections with the nodes of one or more remote clusters in response to be a source node being elected as the leader node).
Regarding Claim 3, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Gaonkar further discloses wherein the third node is a non-leader node that opens the second open TCP connection with the first node in response to the first node being elected as a leader in the first cluster (¶15, Gaonkar discloses that other nodes of the first cluster, not including the leader source node, establishes connections with the leader source node).
Regarding Claim 4, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Gaonkar further discloses wherein the steps further comprise:
receiving, by the first node, a second message from one of the second nodes via the corresponding one of the respective first open TCP connections (¶44 & Fig. 5 (508) & ¶15 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses receiving, by the source node of the respective cluster, data via a connection between the leader source node and leader destination node); and
sending, by the first node, the second message to the third node via the second open TCP connection (¶15 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses sending, by the source node of the respective cluster, data to a non-leader source node via a connection between the leader source node and any one of the non-leader source nodes).
Regarding Claim 5, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Gaonkar further discloses wherein the first cluster is included in a public cloud computing system, a private cloud computing system, or a hybrid cloud computing system (¶2, Gaonkar discloses that the cluster is within a cloud where the cloud can be either private or public).
Regarding Claim 6, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
Gaonkar further discloses wherein a firewall prevents the second nodes from establishing TCP connections with the first node or the third node (¶15, Gaonkar discloses that the leader node is the only node of the cluster that is configured to establish TCP connections with nodes outside the respective cluster).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 25, Gaonkar discloses a first cluster comprising one or more processors executing one or more instructions to provide (¶46 & Fig. 6, Gaonkar discloses the computer system comprises a processor for executing instructions stored on the memory to execute a method or perform steps):
a first node (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses a source node 104 of a first cluster) configured to maintain a respective first open transport control protocol (TCP) connection with each of a plurality of second nodes in a second cluster (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses maintaining, by a source node 104 of a first cluster via a source router 110, a transport control protocol (TCP) connection with each of a plurality of destination nodes (DNs), 302, 304, 306, and 308, of a second cluster); and
a third node (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses a source node (SN) of the first cluster where the SN is not the leader source node 104) configured to:
maintain a second open TCP connection with the first node (¶12 & ¶15 & & ¶27 & Fig. 3 & ¶57, Gaonkar discloses maintaining, by each source node (SN) of the first cluster, a TCP connection with the leader source node 104), wherein the third node is prevented from establishing a TCP connection with any of the plurality of second nodes (¶12 & ¶27 & Fig. 3 ¶57, Gaonkar discloses that each source node (SN) of the first cluster is not directly connected to any of the destination nodes (DNs) of the second cluster. ¶15, Gaonkar further discloses that the second source node, also the leader source node, forwards all traffic for the other nodes in the same cluster); and
send a message to the second cluster by sending the message to the first node via the second open TCP connection (¶44 & Fig. 5 (508), Gaonkar discloses sending, by any source node of the source nodes of the first cluster, data to the second cluster by sending the data via the source router);
wherein the first node is further configured to forward the message to one of the second nodes via a corresponding one of the respective first open TCP connections (¶12 & ¶27 & Fig. 3 ¶57, Gaonkar discloses that the source router 110 of a first cluster is configured to provide external connectivity to any one of the destination nodes (DNs) of the second cluster via the TCP-based connection between the source router and the second cluster).
Regarding Claim 26, Claim 26 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 27, Claim 27 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 28, Claim 28 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 29, Claim 29 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 30, Claim 30 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 11, 19, 23, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaonkar in view of Augustin et al. (US 20230111266 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Augustin”).
Regarding Claim 7, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
However, Gaonkar does not disclose wherein the steps further comprise: sending, by the third node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster; and receiving, by the third node, an identifier of the first node in response to the request.
Augustin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steps further comprise:
sending, by the third node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster (¶84 & Fig. 9 (902), Augustin discloses sending, by a first node of a first cluster, a service discovery request for obtaining an address corresponding to a second cluster); and
receiving, by the third node, an identifier of the first node in response to the request (¶84 & Fig. 9 (910), Augustin discloses receiving, by the first node of the first cluster, a service discovery response where the service discovery response includes an IP address of the gateway corresponding to the second cluster in response to transmitting the service discovery request).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaonkar by sending, by the third node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster and receiving, by the third node, an identifier of the first node in response to the request as taught by Augustin because communication is improved between clusters when the nodes in the clusters have overlapping address spaces (Augustin, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 11, Gaonkar discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1.
However, Gaonkar does not disclose wherein the steps further comprise: sending, by the first node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster; and receiving, by the first node an identifier of one of the plurality of second nodes in response to the request.
Augustin, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steps further comprise:
sending, by the first node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster (¶84 & Fig. 9 (902), Augustin discloses sending, by a first node of a first cluster, a service discovery request for obtaining an address corresponding to a second cluster); and
receiving, by the first node an identifier of one of the plurality of second nodes in response to the request (¶84 & Fig. 9 (910), Augustin discloses receiving, by the first node of the first cluster, a service discovery response where the service discovery response includes an IP address of the gateway corresponding to the second cluster in response to transmitting the service discovery request).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gaonkar by sending, by the first node, a request to a connection database for an identifier of a node in the second cluster and receiving, by the first node an identifier of one of the plurality of second nodes in response to the request as taught by Augustin because communication is improved between clusters when the nodes in the clusters have overlapping address spaces (Augustin, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 31 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 35, Claim 35 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 12, 20-22, 24, 32-34, and 36 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights