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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Kaponen et al. (US 2013/0044636 A1, hereinafter “Kaponen”).
Regarding claims 1,and 11, Kaponen discloses a method for managing route advertisements in a virtualized network, the method comprising: generating routing protocol configuration data for a plurality of logical routers within the virtualized network (see para. 0208-0209, routing protocol to configure L3 logical routers); selecting a set of gateway host machines (see para. 0187, host 890, host includes the managed switching elements and L3 router) to implement logical router ports (see para. 0190, ports connecting to logical router) facing external networks (see 0084-0090, 0196, logical port to the destination L2); distributing the routing protocol configuration data to the selected set of gateway host machines (see para. 0136-0138, switching elements are gateways host machines; para. 0193-201, routes data external); instantiating routing protocol applications within virtualized containers (see para. 0192, namespace is a container created in the host) on the selected set of gateway host machines (see para. 0086, Gateway); establishing peer connections between the routing protocol applications and external routers (see para. 0393-logiclal control plane has the responsibility to peer with the next-hop routers and integrating with external network); and advertising routes from the logical routers to the external routers using the routing protocol applications (see para. 00392, advertise host routes).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kaponent discloses further comprising receiving a logical configuration associated with the plurality of logical routers (see para. 0102-0125, logical routing; para. 0136-0138, plurality of routers with logical connection).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kaponen discloses wherein the set of gateway host machines is selected based at least one load balancing across different failure domains (see para. 0442, logical router performs load balancing).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kaponen discloses further comprising generating flow entries for managed forwarding elements to implement the logical routers (see para. 0138).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kaponen discloses further comprising configuring the logical routers to implement ingress and egress access control lists (ACLs) (see para. 0088, 0153, and 0159, ingress/egress ACL).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kaponen discloses further comprising establishing a plurality of peer connections between the routing protocol applications and the external routers (see para. 0393, control plane responsibility for peer connections)..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaponen in view of Wang (US2002/0184368 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kaponen discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention further comprising configuring the routing protocol applications to send periodic keep-alive messages to the external routers. However, Wang from a similar field of endeavor discloses further comprising configuring the routing protocol applications to send periodic keep-alive messages to the external routers (see para. 0003, keep alive messages). Thus, it will be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Wang keep alive message scheme into Kaponen routing scheme. The method can be implemented in a routing protocol. The motivation of doing this is to improve performance of the network and identify faults.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaponen in view of Aysan et al. (US 2007/0140235 A1, hereinafter “Aysan”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kaponen discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention further comprising generating border gateway protocol (BGP) configuration files for the plurality of logical routers, wherein the BGP configuration files specify IP address prefixes and autonomous system numbers. However, Aysan from a similar field of endeavor discloses further comprising generating border gateway protocol (BGP) configuration files for the plurality of logical routers, wherein the BGP configuration files specify IP address prefixes and autonomous system numbers (see para. 0030, 0042, BGP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Aysan BGP scheme into Kaponen routing scheme. The method can be implemented in a routing protocol. The motivation of doing this is to provide path efficiencies while mainitaining network architecture from the perspective of the existing PAM tools without increasing the number of points of failure (see para. 0011).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaponen in view of Mithayantha (US 2013/0339544 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kaponen discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the routing protocol applications are configured to advertise routes using equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) techniques. However, Mithayantha from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the routing protocol applications are configured to advertise routes using equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) techniques (see para. 0005, 0009, claims 2 and 12). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Mithayantha ECMP scheme int Kaponen routing scheme. The method can be implemented in a routing protocol. The motivation of doing this is to load balance and increase bandwidth (see para. 0002).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaponen in view of Brawn et al. (US 2002/0038380 A1, hereinafter “Brawn”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kaponen discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention further comprising generating security policies for the logical routers to manage route advertisements. However, Brawn from a similar field of endeavor discloses further comprising generating security policies for the logical routers to manage route advertisements (see para. 0037, 0059, route advertisement with security policies). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Brawn security policies into Kaponen routing scheme. The method can be implemented in a routing application. The motivation of doing this is to implement efficient network policies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights