DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected. Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 are objected.
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 Objections
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing systems” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: "integrated circuits (e.g., a conventional microprocessor or microcontroller)… One or more processors” (see paragraph 0306 of the specification as filed).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prziborowski et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0371696).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Prziborowski teaches A method comprising: detecting, by a first cloud environment of a first cloud service provider, that a request for a cloud service provided by the first cloud service provider has been received from a second cloud environment of a second cloud service provider different from the first cloud service provider; (Prziborowski, see fig. 2 source cloud provider and destination cloud provider; see element 210 start migration request; see paragraphs 0021-0022 ...Migration service 170 directs the migration agent 128 to start copying files and guest data from the source VM to the destination VM…; note that the migration service 170 prepares the destination cloud provider for migration and therefore, the migration service 170 is a cloud environment of the destination cloud provider)
after detecting that the request for the cloud service has been received, provisioning, by the first cloud environment, a first set of resources within the first cloud environment; and (Prziborowski, see fig. 2 source cloud provider and destination cloud provider; see paragraph 0022 Migration service 170 directs the migration agent 128 to start copying files...; see paragraph 0023 executing on the source VM iteratively copies guest data from the source VM to the destination VM until the switchover criteria of the migration operation is met. At step 214, migration 168 executing on the destination VM receives the guest data and writes the guest data directly to the disk of the destination VM while operating at a guest level (in contrast to a host-level process that operates outside of the VM)...)
linking, by the first cloud environment, the first set of resources to a second set of resources within the second cloud environment, wherein linking the first set of resources to the second set of resources enables data pertaining to the cloud service to be transferred from the second cloud environment to the first cloud environment. (Prziborowski, see fig. 2 source cloud provider and destination cloud provider; see paragraph 0022 Migration service 170 directs the migration agent 128 to start copying files...; see paragraph 0023 executing on the source VM iteratively copies guest data from the source VM to the destination VM until the switchover criteria of the migration operation is met. At step 214, migration 168 executing on the destination VM receives the guest data and writes the guest data directly to the disk of the destination VM while operating at a guest level (in contrast to a host-level process that operates outside of the VM)...)
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Prziborowski teaches wherein the request is initiated in response to a customer device interacting with a portal of the second cloud environment, and (Prziborowski, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0021 the user authorizes the migration, cross-cloud migration service 170 can proceed to step 210…; see paragraph 0012 where provide an enterprise (or users of an enterprise) with one or more virtual data centers in which a user may provision VMs 160, deploy multi-tier applications on VMs 160, and/or execute workload... accessible to users via a REST API, and may authenticate connection attempts from a user using credentials (customer/user account) issued by the cloud computing provider.)
wherein the customer device is associated with a customer account of the second cloud service provider. (Prziborowski, see fig. 2; see paragraph 0021 the user authorizes the migration, cross-cloud migration service 170 can proceed to step 210…; see paragraph 0012 where provide an enterprise (or users of an enterprise) with one or more virtual data centers in which a user may provision VMs 160, deploy multi-tier applications on VMs 160, and/or execute workload... accessible to users via a REST API, and may authenticate connection attempts from a user using credentials (customer/user account) issued by the cloud computing provider.)
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.
Claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prziborowski in view of Janakiraman et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0048485).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Prziborowski teaches all of the features of claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Prziborowski does not explicitly teach wherein provisioning the first set of resources within the first cloud environment comprises: receiving information identifying a first subnet in the second cloud environment and a first range of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that are associated with the first subnet;
provisioning a private cloud within the first cloud environment; and
provisioning a second subnet in the private cloud, wherein a second range of IP addresses that are associated with the second subnet are within a Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) of the first range of IP addresses.
Janakiraman teaches wherein provisioning the first set of resources within the first cloud environment comprises: receiving information identifying a first subnet in the second cloud environment and a first range of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that are associated with the first subnet; (Janakiraman, see figs. 1 and 3; see paragraph 0043 include setting up more specific routes in a VPC 130 where a subnet resides such that the more specific routes cover at least a portion, and potentially the entire, subnet range. For instance, if the subnet is 10.1.0.0/24, the more specific routes may be setup as 10.1.0.0/25 and 10.1.128.0/25 such that they cover the entire range of IP addresses of the default local route...endpoints 132 in a VPC 130 where a stretched subnet 108 resides is routed to the common cloud router 118, and the common cloud router 118 determines whether the traffic is to be re-routed back to a destination endpoint 132 in the VPC 130)
provisioning a private cloud within the first cloud environment; and (Janakiraman, see figs. 1-3; see paragraph 0043 include setting up more specific routes in a VPC (virtual private cloud) 130 where a subnet resides such that the more specific routes cover at least a portion, and potentially the entire, subnet range. For instance, if the subnet is 10.1.0.0/24, the more specific routes may be setup as 10.1.0.0/25 and 10.1.128.0/25 such that they cover the entire range of IP addresses of the default local route...endpoints 132 in a VPC 130 where a stretched subnet 108 resides is routed to the common cloud router 118, and the common cloud router 118 determines whether the traffic is to be re-routed back to a destination endpoint 132 in the VPC 130)
provisioning a second subnet in the private cloud, wherein a second range of IP addresses that are associated with the second subnet are within a Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) of the first range of IP addresses. (Janakiraman, see fig. 2A-3; see paragraph 0053 a Layer 2 private address space 204 (e.g., Subnet, CIDR, etc.) belonging to tenant 202 is stretched between the on-premises site 102 and the cloud site 104 such that, for example, a stretched subnet 108 exists for endpoints 132 and 162 in the Layer 2 private address space 204 (e.g., Subnet/CIDR)...; see also paragraph 0058 )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Prziborowski and Janakiraman to provide the technique of receiving information identifying a first subnet in the second cloud environment and a first range of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that are associated with the first subnet, provisioning a private cloud within the first cloud environment, and provisioning a second subnet in the private cloud, wherein a second range of IP addresses that are associated with the second subnet are within a Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) of the first range of IP addresses of Janakiraman in the system of Prziborowski in order to continually adapt for changes occurring within the networks and grow the available compute resources and capabilities of the systems (Janakiraman, see paragraphs 0003 and 0004).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Prziborowski-Janakiraman teaches further comprising: creating a resource comprising a virtual machine cluster in the first cloud environment, (Janakiraman, see fig. 1-2B; see paragraph 0034 The VPCs 130A, 130B, and 130N can include endpoints (EPs) 132 on the public cloud 104. The EPs 132 can include virtual/logical and/or physical endpoints, such as VMs...service policy groups can include one or more respective service policies defined for traffic matching one or more attributes associated with the service groups, such as IP addresses (e.g., the IP addresses of EPs 132 in the service groups), labels (e.g., VM labels or tags), EP attributes (e.g., VM names or characteristics), IP prefixes, etc...)
wherein each IP address of the second range of IP addresses is associated with a virtual machine of the virtual machine cluster; and (Janakiraman, see figs. 1-2B; see paragraph 0043 include setting up more specific routes in a VPC (virtual private cloud) 130 where a subnet resides such that the more specific routes cover at least a portion, and potentially the entire, subnet range. For instance, if the subnet is 10.1.0.0/24, the more specific routes may be setup as 10.1.0.0/25 and 10.1.128.0/25 such that they cover the entire range of IP addresses of the default local route...endpoints 132 in a VPC 130 where a stretched subnet 108 resides is routed to the common cloud router 118, and the common cloud router 118 determines whether the traffic is to be re-routed back to a destination endpoint 132 in the VPC 130; see paragraphs 0034 one or more attributes associated with the service groups, such as IP addresses (e.g., the IP addresses of EPs 132 (VMs) in the service groups))
attaching the resource to a router of the first cloud environment. (Janakiraman, see figs. 1-2B; see paragraph 0035 Traffic to and from the VPCs 130A, 130B, and 130N can be routed via routers 136, 138, and 142, which can include virtual cloud routers, virtual private gateways or VPN gateways (hereinafter “vGWs”), cloud services routers (CSR) such as Cisco CSR1 kV routers,...) The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 3, 10 and 17 is also applied to claims 4, 11 and 18.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prziborowski in view of Shevade et al. (U.S. PGPub 20220311744).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Prziborowski teaches all of the features of claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Prziborowski does not explicitly teach wherein linking the first set of resources to the second set of resources enables data pertaining to the cloud service to be transferred from a first subnet associated with a first private cloud of the second cloud environment to a second subnet associated with a second private cloud of the first cloud environment.
Shevade teaches wherein linking the first set of resources to the second set of resources enables data pertaining to the cloud service to be transferred from a first subnet associated with a first private cloud of the second cloud environment to a second subnet associated with a second private cloud of the first cloud environment. (Shevade, see fig. 1; see paragraphs 0031 and 0032 two virtual private cloud networks 107a and 107b of a cloud provider network are shown... wireless devices 106 grouped within a particular virtual private cloud network 107 may communicate with each other as if they were on a single network segment, ...; see paragraph 0090 where routing information is transferred between the virtual routers 329. A wide-area networking (WAN) service can be implemented at the provider network... provide connectivity between different network slices of one or more radio-based networks 103 corresponding to different subnets of a virtual private cloud network 107...)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to combine Prziborowski and Shevade to provide the technique of linking the first set of resources to the second set of resources enables data pertaining to the cloud service to be transferred from a first subnet associated with a first private cloud of the second cloud environment to a second subnet associated with a second private cloud of the first cloud environment of Shevade in the system of Prziborowski in order to improve the security of radio-based networks and reliability and performance of services on virtual private cloud networks (Shevade, see paragraph 0023).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
U.S. Patent No. 9407572, which describes systems and methods for multiple cloud marketplace aggregation;
U.S. PGPub 2023/0328003, which describes systems, methods, and software to manage multiple sellers of record in a cloud computing environment; and
U.S. PGPub 2020/0167177, which describes virtual machine migration across cloud computing providers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG VANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7023. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-2PM, 3PM-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, NICHOLAS TAYLOR can be reached at (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.
/MENG VANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights