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
Currently pending claim is 1.
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.
Claim 1 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 because it’s unclear to distinct the specific functionalities between the first (1st) server and the third (3rd) server – for example, the 1st server is recited with a feature such as “simultaneously establishing a plurality of logically separate and secure networks” – i.e. SDN (Software Defined Networking) routing capability (SPEC: page 38 / 3rd Para), which basically must provide a feature to manage and control inbound and outbound data traffic for routing a plurality of logically separate and secure networks – However, Examiner notes:
The 3rd server has recited one single feature (i.e.) “controlling inbound and outbound data traffic of the plurality of logically separate and secure networks”, which is essentially a (same) feature for SDN routing as recited in the 1st server (see above for detail) – as such, said single claim feature of the 3rd server as recited has no distinction from the 1st server and is unclear (e.g. missing critical claim element(s) for the 3rd server) and thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Any other claims not addressed are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 – 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,601,434. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other – accordingly, because the listed claims of U.S. Patent virtually contain(s) every element of the listed claims of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claim(s) of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001)”.
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Nagalla et al. (U.S. Patent 10,616,339), in view of Saxena et al. (U.S. Patent 10,749,740).
As per claim 1, Nagalla teaches a system, comprising:
a first server computing device (Nagalla: Figure 1 & Figure 3 / E-330 and Col. 2 Line 36 – 41 / Line 25 – 29 and Col. 4 Line 7 – 8 / Line 32 – 35 and Col. 6 Line 25 – 27: (a) a structured platform provides a typical host environment of an information handling system (FIG. 1 / FIG. 3.E-330), which can be implemented as a network server / switch router, switching management system-part-I that constitutes a first server computing device with (b) scalable / expandable structure of connections to another information handling system as needed), comprising:
a first non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a first set of instructions and application data relating to the system (Nagalla: see FIG. 1 & Col. 3 Line 14 – 16, Col. 6 Line 37 – 40 and Col. 2 Line 42 – 49: (e.g.) SDN (Software Defined Networking) enabled applications), and
a first processor coupled to the first non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to control a first plurality of modules to execute the first set of instructions for simultaneously establishing a plurality of logically separate and secure networks within a self-supported computing environment (Nagalla: see above, Figure 1 & Figure / E-330 & Col. 6 Line 37 – 40 / Line 24 – 27: providing logically Software Defined Networking (SDN) / routing on switch stacks utilizing dynamic (i.e. simultaneous) and scalable networking operations, within a structured platform of a host environment of an information handling system (i.e. as a self-supported computing environment), to meet the high demands of virtualized networking / computing and storage environments (i.e. with virtualized software) as a data center).
However, Nagalla does not disclose expressly establish a plurality of logically separate and secure networks.
Saxena (& Nagalla) teaches establishing a plurality of logically separate and secure networks (Saxena: Col. 4 Line 13 – 26 / Line 27 – 29: a data center employs software-defined networking (SDN) that allows different cloud resources (e.g. VMs) to be logically isolated / secured over the SDN network for different EaaS-based services – i.e. routing the data traffic of different cloud resources (e.g. VMs) over the logically isolated SDN network for different EaaS-based services).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to propose the modification of establishing a plurality of logically separate and secure networks because Saxena teaches to alternatively, effectively and securely provide a data center employs software-defined networking (SDN) that allows different cloud resources (e.g. VMs) to be logically isolated / secured over the SDN network for different EaaS-based services (see above) within the Nagalla’s system of providing logically Software Defined Networking (SDN) / routing on switch stacks utilizing dynamic and scalable (i.e. simultaneous) networking operations to meet the high demands of virtualized networking / computing and storage environments (i.e. with virtualized software) as a data center (see above).
a second server computing device (Nagalla: Figure 1 / E-190 and Col. 2 Line 36 – 41 / Line 25 – 29 and Col. 4 Line 36 – 59: a structured platform providing a host environment of an information handling system (FIG. 1 / FIG. 3.E-330), which can be implemented as a network server (OOB server) constitutes a second server computing device), comprising:
a second non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a second set of instructions (Nagalla: see above & Col. 4 Line 36 – 42 and Col. 2 Line 42 – 49), and
a second processor coupled to the second non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to control a second plurality of modules to execute the second set of instructions for performing out-of-band management of the system (Nagalla: see above & Col. 4 Line 36 – 49 / Line 52 – 59: (a) (e.g.) an information handling system installing with a SoC device, (b) a NIC devices (network interface devices) and (c) providing out-of-band (OOB) management mechanism for networking operations); and
a third server computing device (Nagalla: Figure 1 & Figure 3 / E-340 and Col. 2 Line 36 – 41 / Line 25 – 29 and Col. 4 Line 7 – 8 / Line 32 – 35 and Col. 6 Line 25 – 27: (a) a structured platform providing a host environment of an information handling system (FIG. 1 / FIG. 3.E-340), which can be implemented as a network server / switch router, switching management system-part-II that constitutes a third server computing device with (b) scalable / expandable structure of connections to another information handling system as needed), comprising:
a third non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a third set of instructions (Nagalla: Col. 2 Line 42 – 49) and
a third processor coupled to the third non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and configured to control a third plurality of modules to execute the third set of instructions for controlling inbound and outbound data traffic of the plurality of logically separate and secure networks (Nagalla: see above, Figure 1 / E-180 & Col. 4 Line 16 – 35 and Col. 2 Line 42 – 49: || Saxena: Col. 4 Line 13 – 26 / Line 27 – 29: (a) having a network interface to manage and control inbound and outbound data traffic (Nagalla: see above) such that routing the data traffic of different cloud resources (e.g. VMs) over the logically isolated SDN network for different EaaS-based services (Saxena: see above)),
wherein the system is scalable by at least adding additional one or more first server computing devices to host additional application data within the self-supported computing environment's secure configuration and logical separation of networks while maintaining the second and third server computing devices (Nagalla: see above & Col. 4 Line 7 – 8 / Line 32 – 35 and Col. 6 Line 25 – 27: providing a dynamic and scalable network structure with add-on resource to enable the expansion of network connections to another information handling system).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONGBIT CHAI whose telephone number is (571)272-3788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Lynn D. Feild can be reached on 571-272-2092. 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.
---------------------------------------------------
/Longbit Chai/
Longbit Chai E.E. Ph.D.
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
No. #2565 – 2025 ---------------------------------------------------