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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12086625 Brar et al hereinafter Brar. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Referring to Claim 1. Brar discloses a method comprising:
communicatively coupling a first physical port of a network virtualization device (NVD)
included in a datacenter to a first top-of-rack (TOR) switch and a second TOR switch (refer to claim 1);
communicatively coupling a second physical port of the NVD with a network interface
card (NIC) associated with a host machine, the second physical port providing a plurality of
logical ports for communications between the NVD and the NIC (refer to claim 1);
receiving, by the NVD, a packet from the host machine via one of the plurality of logical
ports, the packet being destined for a destination host machine (refer to claim 1 and 7);
obtaining an IP address of a remote NVD that serves the destination host machine (refer to claim 7 and 1);
modifying, by the NVD, a header of the packet to include the IP address of the remote
NVD as an intended destination of the packet and a software interface IP address of the NVD as
being a source of the packet (refer to claim 1 and 7); and
transmitting, by the NVD, the packet to one of the first TOR and the second TOR to
facilitate communication of the packet to the destination host machine (refer to claim 1, 2 and 8).
Referring to Claim 2. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the first physical port of the NVD is associated with a first IP address, a second IP address, a first MAC address, and a second MAC address (refer to claim 1 and 3).
Referring to Claim 3. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the second physical port of the NVD is associated with a first overlay IP address, a second overlay IP address, a first overlay MAC address, and a second overlay MAC address (refer to Claim 1 and 4).
Referring to Claim 4. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the destination host machine is a remote host machine included in a customer on-premises network (refer to claim 1 and 5).
Referring to Claim 5. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the destination host machine is a remote host machine included in the datacenter and is served by the remote NVD (refer to claim 1 and 9).
Referring to Claim 6. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the packet originates from a virtual machine executing on the host machine, the method further comprising:
determining, based on a configuration of the NVD, a particular logical port from the
plurality of logical ports that is to be used for communicating the packet from the host machine
to the NVD; and transmitting the packet from the host machine to the NVD using the particular logical port (refer to claim 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 7. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses wherein the NVD executes a flow hashing operation to select the one of the first TOR and the second TOR to facilitate communication of the packet to the destination host machine (refer to claim 1 and 8).
Referring to Claim 8. Brar disclosed the method of claim 1, Brar discloses transmitting, by one of the first TOR and the second TOR, the packet to a remote NVD via a network fabric; and forwarding, by the remote NVD, the packet to the destination host machine (refer to claim 1 and 8).
Referring to Claims 9-19, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kommula et al hereinafter Kommula (US 2026/0058900) in view of Matthews et al hereinafter Matthews (US 11,057,318).
Referring to Claim 1. Kommula discloses a method comprising:
communicatively coupling a first physical port of a network virtualization device (NVD)
(servers, each has virtualized functions and have physical NICs with ports, and each NIC has virtualized NIC with virtualized ports, refer to par 0048) included in a datacenter to a first top-of-rack (TOR) switch and a second TOR switch (refer to Fig 1 and par 0048);
communicatively coupling a second physical port of the NVD with a network interface
card (NIC) associated with a host machine, the second physical port providing a plurality of
logical ports for communications between the NVD and the NIC (each physical NIC contains multiple virtual NICs and where each NIC contains multiple ports, refer to par 0048 and Fig 1, and par 0048-0049);
receiving, by the NVD, a packet from the host machine via one of the plurality of logical
ports, the packet being destined for a destination host machine (receive from a service controller, refer to par 0106, and destinate to a host machine, refer to par 0107, par 0048 and Fig 1, 0037-0038, networks includes the customer site, and the server machine which is the virtualize device, the network includes customer site, refer to par 0043);
obtaining an IP address of a remote NVD that serves the destination host machine (refer to par 0101, 0107);
modifying, by the NVD, a header of the packet to include the IP address of the remote
NVD as an intended destination of the packet and a software interface IP address of the NVD as
being a source of the packet (modify header, refer to par 0101, 0119, 0120, 0182); and
transmitting, by the NVD, the packet to one of the first TOR and the second TOR to
facilitate communication of the packet to the destination host machine (transmit the packets, refer to par Fig 1, 0119-0121).
Although Kommula disclosed the invention substantially as claimed, Kommula did not explicitly stating physical ports providing plurality logical ports.
Matthews, in analogous art, disclosing the overlay network on the physical network and a physical port providing a plurality of logical ports (refer to Col 34, Lines 60- Col 35, Lines 15)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kommula with Matthews because Matthews’s teaching would allow the system of Kommula to improve the effective of cloud computing system while reducing complexity of physical network and associated with maintenance cost.
Referring to Claim 2. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the first physical port of the NVD is associated with a first IP address, a second IP address, a first MAC address, and a second MAC address (L2/L3 has IP address and MAC addresses, refer to par 0007, 0072, 0149, refer to par 0186).
Referring to Claim 3. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the second physical port of the NVD is associated with a first overlay IP address, a second overlay IP address, a first overlay MAC address, and a second overlay MAC address (overlay virtual device has IP address/MAC address, refer to par 0072, 0149, 0186, 0007, 0120).
Referring to Claim 4. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the destination host machine is a remote host machine included in a customer on-premises network (Fig 1, 0037-0038, networks includes the customer site, and the server machine which is the virtualize device, refer to par 0043).
Referring to Claim 5. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the destination host machine is a remote host machine included in the datacenter and is served by the remote NVD (the host machine includes in the datacenter, and served by the server/NVD, refer to par 0043).
Referring to Claim 6. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the packet originates from a virtual machine executing on the host machine, the method further comprising:
determining, based on a configuration of the NVD, a particular logical port from the
plurality of logical ports that is to be used for communicating the packet from the host machine
to the NVD; and transmitting the packet from the host machine to the NVD using the particular logical port (determine based on the controller determination and calculation, which port to communicate the package, which includes destination address, port, source address, port information refer to par 0048, 0081, 0119-0120, 0186).
Referring to Claim 7. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses wherein the NVD executes a flow hashing operation to select the one of the first TOR and the second TOR to facilitate communication of the packet to the destination host machine (compute hash/LAG hash method is used to calculate the path to take through which TOR to reach the destination, par 0167, 0043, 0054-0055, 0082, 0119-0120, 0186).
Referring to Claim 8. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the method of claim 1, Kommula discloses comprising: transmitting, by one of the first TOR and the second TOR, the packet to a remote NVD via a network fabric; and forwarding, by the remote NVD, the packet to the destination host machine (refer to Fig 1 and 0043, communication is transmitted through one of the TOR to a remote NVD via network fabric, see Fig 1 to remote server/NVD, see Fig 1, 0119-0120).
Referring to Claims 9-18, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-8.
Referring to Claim 19. Kommula with Matthews disclosed the non-transitory computer readable medium storing specific computer-executable instructions of claim 17, Kommula discloses wherein the destination host machine is a remote host machine included in a customer on-premises network (Fig 1, 0037-0038, networks includes the customer site, and the server machine which is the virtualize device, can communicate with the customer site, refer to par 0043).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights