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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the second computing unit " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
3. Claim 20 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.
The feature “their” in line 4 of claim 20 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “their” refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) 1-20 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a communication link claims 1-20 are not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claims 1-20 recite no element which is limited to a hardware embodiment for the communication link to be either a machine or manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al., (hereafter, “Jain”), US 2021/0377232 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jain teaches high-performance communication link connecting a first computing device and a second computing device, the communication link comprising a plurality of interconnects between the first computing device and the second computing device (i.e., a tunnel comprises multiple encryption tunnels between particular pairs of tunnel endpoints, page 1 paragraph [0031]), wherein the plurality of interconnects are configured in accordance with a secure network protocol (i.e., configuring tunnels for an encryption-based protocol (IPSec), page 4 paragraph [0036]) that tunnels data over different ports to achieve increased aggregated throughput (i.e., a data message marked with a virtual tunnel interface (VTI) key value 1 is encrypted and sent over the first tunnel (“tun1”), and a data message marked with a VTI key value of 2 is encrypted and sent over the second tunnel (“tun2”), page 4 paragraphs [0036]-0048]).
Regarding claim 2, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 1, wherein the first computing device and the second computing device each comprises at least one network interface (i.e., interface(s) 203, Fig. 2), and further wherein the at least one network interface includes at least one network interface controller (i.e., a physical network interface controller (pNIC) is assigned, page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface of the first computing device and the second computing device is configured with a number of queues (i.e., virtual queues of vNIC, page 2 paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface controller of the second computing unit is configured to receive data traffic addressed by a destination IP address assigned to the second computing device (i.e., each interface has a unique network (IP) address that is used to address the interface and each tunnel is defined by the pair of network addresses of the tunnel endpoint interfaces, page 3 paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 1, wherein the first computing device transmits data traffic from a resource to a selected virtual interface that operates as a termination point for a selected interconnect (i.e., data messages are received at vNIC, page 3 paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface controller of the first computing device is configured to substitute an actual port number within meta-information of the data with a logical port identifier (i.e., the VTI used is based on a hash of packet attributes (e.g., header values as a 5-tuple), page 4 paragraph [0052] and page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 7, wherein the meta-information is a 5-tuple header (i.e., a hash of the data message header values (i.e., a 5-tuple), page 3 paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface controller of the first computing device is configured to access a data store that features a listing of logical port identifiers along with intended queues and/or processing logic unit (i.e., lookup table …a VTI or set of VTIs for a particular processor, page 5 paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 9, wherein the logical port identifiers (i.e., VTIs) represent logical ports within a specified port number range (i.e., VTI key value 1, 2) that are routed by the at least one network interface controller of the second computing device to a processing logic unit within the second computing device (i.e., Fig. 3 and page 4 paragraphs [0036]- [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface controller (i.e., pNIc) of the second computing device interacts with a plurality of queues (i.e., Queues 135A-135D) and processing logic units (i.e., Core 140A-140D) deployed within the second computing device (i.e., computer 101) (i.e., Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 2, wherein the at least one network interface controller of the second computing device deploys a logic that performs operations on meta-information (i.e., header values (e.g., a 5-tuple)) included as part of the incoming data traffic and is processed to determine an intended queue to receive the incoming data traffic (i.e., after data messages are received at vNIC 120, queue the data messages in queues of vNIC 120 based on a hash of the data message header values (e.g., a 5-tuple), Fig. 1 and page 3 paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 12, wherein the meta-information is selected from a destination network address, a destination port, a source network address or a source port (i.e., attributes are a source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination port, and protocol type, page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 12, wherein the logic is configured to identify a correlation between results produced from operations conducted on at least a portion of the meta-information (i.e., each queue is mapped to a specific core...queue the messages in queues of vNIC based on hash of the data message header values, page 3 paragraphs [0028] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 15, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 12, wherein the logic is configured to utilize the logical source or destination port as a look-up to determine the targeted queue to receive the data traffic (i.e., queue the data messages in queues of vNIC based on a hash of the data message header values, page 3 paragraph [0030] and page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 12, wherein the logic is configured to perform operations on the portion of the meta-information to generate a result that may be used as a look-up to determine a queue corresponding to the result (i.e., queue the data messages in queues of vNIC based on a hash of the data message header values, page 3 paragraph [0030] and page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 1, wherein the first computing device operates as a source computing device (i.e., computer 601A, Fig. 6) and is responsible for selection of a processing logic unit for receipt and transmission of the data (i.e., determine a core to use to process the queued data messages, page 4 paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 1, wherein the first computing device comprises source network address translation logic and the second computing device comprises destination network address translation logic, and further wherein the source network address translation logic and the destination network translation logic collectively support the distribution of data traffic across the high-performance communication link (i.e., received data messages to be transmitted by the computer using IPSec protocol are distributed among a set of processors of the computer, based on attributes of the original data message…the distribution is accomplished using hashing function in any combination of a source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination port, and protocol type, page 1 paragraphs [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 18, wherein the source network address translation logic operates so that each source processing logic unit perceives that they are connecting to computing devices each associated with different, ephemeral destination IP addresses (i.e., each gateway computer 201 includes multiple interfaces…each interface has a unique network address that is used to address the interface, page 3 paragraph [0034]).
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.
5. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, in view of Horton et al., (hereafter, “Horton”), US 2021/0099747 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 3.
Jain does not explicitly teach wherein the number of interconnects exceeds the number of queues between the first computing device and the second computing device.
Horton teaches wherein the number of interconnects exceeds the number of queues between the first computing device and the second computing device (i.e., the number of channels m may be much greater than the number of receiving queues n, page 3 paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jain to implement the number of interconnects exceeding the number of queues between the first computing device and the second computing device, as taught by Horton. One would be motivated to do so to mitigate processing delays (i.e., Horton, page 1 paragraph [0004]).
6. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, in view of Xiao, US 2018/0041443 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Jain teaches the high-performance communication link of claim 18.
Jain does not explicitly teach wherein the destination network address translation logic is configured with access to one or more data stores that are configured to maintain (i) a first mapping between peer IP address/logical port combinations and their corresponding ephemeral network address/actual port combinations and (ii) a second mapping between the ephemeral, destination IP address/actual port combinations and the destination peer IP address/actual port combinations.
Xiao teaches wherein the destination network address translation logic is configured with access to one or more data stores that are configured to maintain (i.e., the NAT agent maintains different databases (or tables) such as a pool of replacement IP address: port number pairs, a list of active sessions IP mapping, paragraph [0084]) (i) a first mapping between peer IP address/logical port combinations and their corresponding ephemeral network address/actual port combinations (i.e., IP mappings maps each pair of replacement IP address and replacement port number to…actual IP address…actual port number, and MAC address, Fig. 17 and page 1 paragraph [0017]) and (ii) a second mapping between the ephemeral, destination IP address/actual port combinations and the destination peer IP address/actual port combinations (i.e., the replacement IP address: port number pair in the destination field of the reply packet with the tenant VM's actual IP address: port number pair, page 11 paragraph [0154]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jain to configure the destination network address translation logic with access to one or more data stores that are configured to maintain (i) a first mapping between peer IP address/logical port combinations and their corresponding ephemeral network address/actual port combinations and (ii) a second mapping between the ephemeral, destination IP address/actual port combinations and the destination peer IP address/actual port combinations, as taught by Xiao. One would be motivated to do so to provide efficient service while utilizing tunnels for accessing data (i.e., Xiao, page 12 paragraph [0068]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tumuluru, US 2018/0062875 A1, discloses packets sent through tunnels having the same source and destination IP address but different source ports may be routed along different paths (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0031]).
Wei et al, US 11,716,306 B1, discloses a computerized method for increasing throughput of encapsulated data over a network, wherein a plurality of connections is generated between the first network device and the second device (i.e., abstract).
Gundavelli et al., US 2009/0122 A1, discloses methods and apparatus for applying a single virtual private network (VPN) address to tunnels or connections associated with different access interfaces (i.e., abstract).
Yu et al, US 2020/0403922 A1, discloses a computer-implemented method provides mechanisms for load balancing of L2VPN traffic over multiple IPsec VPN tunnels (i.e., abstract).
NG et al., US 2020/0068027 A1, discloses methods and systems for transmitting a received packet at a first network node through an aggregated connection (i.e., abstract).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571) 272-4170. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights