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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang (US 2008/0276002).
As per claim 1, Jiang discloses a system associated with a Domain Name System (DNS) service that anonymizes Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of endpoints, the system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving a DNS request to resolve a domain name on behalf of a client device; ([0026]; FIG. 2 illustrates the process of a client connecting to a server, according to an embodiment of the invention. A client 201 first sends capacity requests in parallel to connect to all colocations 211, 221, and 231 on the pre-populated IP list simultaneously)
determining a first geographic region in which a first endpoint is located; determining a second geographic region that a second endpoint is located, the second geographic region being different than the first geographic region; (0025] In an embodiment, the client determines which of the colocations are closest to the client. As used herein, "close" does not necessarily mean basing the determination only on geographic proximity. As used herein, a "close" colocation is a colocation which results in the fastest connection to the client ; [0040]; In step 301, the client performs connection racing in order to determine the closest server to the client. Connection racing is performed by the client attempting parallel connections to all colocations with a capacity query request.; [0041] The client receives responses and compares the response times from the different colocations in order to determine the proximity of the colocations to the client as shown in step 303. The colocation with the shortest response time has the closest proximity to the client.)
selecting to communicate with the second endpoint based at least in part on the second endpoint being located in the second geographic region; and providing an address associated with the second endpoint for use by the client device to contact the second endpoint. ([0041]; The colocation with the shortest response time has the closest proximity to the client. In step 305, the client examines the information in the response from the colocation. The information indicates the availability of the colocation and an IP address of a connection server in that colocation.; [0042]; The availability is determined by the load or capacity of the colocation. Finally, in step 309, the client makes a connection to the connection server using the IP address indicated in the response.)
As per claim 2, Jiang discloses the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: mapping an IP address of an endpoint to a group of VIP addresses; selecting a VIP address from the group of VIP addresses to provide to the client device based at least in part on the second endpoint; and providing the VIP address for use by the client device to contact the second endpoint. ([0028] The client's capacity requests are directed to the VIP server of each colocation. Each colocation is identified by a VIP so that all attempted connections to a particular colocation are made with a single IP address for that particular colocation. A VIP is an IP address that is not connected to a specific connection server. VIPs are used mostly for connection redundancy. Each connection server within the colocation also is associated with an individual IP address that is publicly reachable independent of the VIP server.)
As per claim 6, Jiang discloses the system of claim 1, the operations further comprising: determining a first virtual distance between a first VIP address and the client device; determining a second virtual distance between a second VIP address and the client device; and selecting the first VIP address from a group of VIP addresses based at least in part on the first virtual distance being a greater amount then the second virtual distance. ([0040]; In step 301, the client performs connection racing in order to determine the closest server to the client. Connection racing is performed by the client attempting parallel connections to all colocations with a capacity query request.; [0041] The client receives responses and compares the response times from the different colocations in order to determine the proximity of the colocations to the client as shown in step 303. The colocation with the shortest response time has the closest proximity to the client.)
As per claims 11 and 17, please see the discussion under claim 1 as similar logic applies.
As per claims 12 and 18, please see the discussion under claim 2 as similar logic applies.
As per claim 15, please see the discussion under claim 6 as similar logic applies.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. – hereinafter Jiang (US 2008/0276002) in view of Kreger-Stickles et al. – hereinafter Kreger-Stickles (US 11,558,245)
As per claim 3, Jiang disclose the system of claim 2. Jiang fails to disclose the operations further comprising: receiving a packet having a destination address that is the VIP address; determining that a source address of the packet is a source IP address of the client device sent the packet; performing Network Address Translation (NAT) by changing the destination address of the packet from the VIP address to the IP address of the second endpoint; and sending the packet to a next hop associated with the IP address of the endpoint. Kreger-Stickles discloses the operations further comprising: receiving a packet having a destination address that is the VIP address; determining that a source address of the packet is a source IP address of the client device sent the packet; performing Network Address Translation (NAT) by changing the destination address of the packet from the VIP address to the IP address of the second endpoint; and sending the packet to a next hop associated with the IP address of the endpoint. (Col 12 lines 31-64; The worker VNICs are configured with the virtual IP address of the VNIC and in turn, initiate a connection to the registered external resource in the external site representation via the proxy servers (244, 254). The proxy severs (244, 254) perform a network address translation (NAT) to translate the virtual IP address assigned to the VNIC 206 to the real/physical IP address of the external resource 114A.in the external site representation 106. The resource shards (136, 140) using the proxy servers (244, 254) initiate a connection to the agent 112 via the tunnel shards (120, 126). The agent 112 receives the network packets from the tunnel shards (120, 126) and, in turn, routes the packets to the registered external resource (i.e., database 202) in the external site representation 106.)
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of the invention for the teachings of Jiang to be modified so that the virtual IP address is translated into an actual IP address for the second hop for the destination node by using network address translation. This would have been advantageous to establish secure private bi-directional network connectivity between external resources residing in a customer's on-premise environment and the customer's resources residing in the cloud. (Col1 lines 47-54; to establish secure private bi-directional network connectivity between external resources residing in a customer's on-premise environment and the customer's resources residing in the cloud.)
As per claim 13, please see the discussion under claim 3 as similar logic applies.
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 2008/0276002) in view of Pacino, II (US 2023/0409720)
As per claim 4, Jiang discloses the system of claim 1. Jiang fails to discloses the operations further comprising:. determining at least one privacy requirement associated with the second endpoint; and selecting to communicate with the second endpoint based at least in part on the at least one privacy requirement.
Pacino, II discloses determining at least one privacy requirement associated with the second endpoint; and selecting to communicate with the second endpoint based at least in part on the at least one privacy requirement. ([0036]; Additionally, the consumer of the data agrees to abide by privacy terms such as remaining GDPR compliant. The owner of the wallet can be notified whenever a consumer requests access to their wallet, and this connection (along with the connection date) can be visible to the wallet owner in a user interface as described further below in conjunction with FIG. 8.) It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Jiang to be modified so that the client communicate with the second endpoint using the privacy requirements. This would have This would have been advantageous to prevent unauthorized access to personal data.
As per claim 5, Jiang/ Pacino, II disclose the system of claim 4. Pacino, II discloses wherein the at least one privacy requirement is associated with general data protection regulation (GDPR). ([0002]; One of the primary examples is a recent European Union law known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR (regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament).; [0003]; One of the primary examples is a recent European Union law known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR (regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament).)
As per claims 14 and 19, please see the discussion under claim 4 as similar logic applies.
As per claim 20, please see the discussion under claim 5 as similar logic applies.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 2008/0276002) in view of Maenpaa et al. - hereinafter Maenpaa (US 2011/0205949)
As per claim 10, Jiang discloses the system of claim 1. Jiang fails to disclose further comprising: determining a first power usage associated with the first endpoint; determining a second power usage associated with the second endpoint; and selecting to communicate with the second endpoint based at least in part on at least one of the first power usage or the second power usage.
Maenpaa discloses determining a first power usage associated with the first endpoint; determining a second power usage associated with the second endpoint; and selecting to communicate with the second endpoint based at least in part on at least one of the first power usage or the second power usage. ([0079] At step 503, the node examines its routing table and determines the power usage parameters and PMS parameter of each of the selected routing neighbours. At step 504 it calculates (as described above) the cost in terms of power consumption of sending the message to each of the routing neighbours. Finally, at step 505 it sends the message to the routing neighbour having the lowest power consumption cost.)
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date for the teachings of Jiang to be modified so that the power at the first and second colocation are determined to route the user to the node that has the lower power consumption. This would have been advantageous to optimize the routing performance of the routing algorithm based on power consumption. (Maenpaa, [0014])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from theexaminer should be directed to Chirag R Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-7966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00AM to 6:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, theexaminer's supervisor, Glenton Burgess, can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceedingis assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status informationfor published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or PublicPAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available throughPrivate PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PrivatePAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll free).
/Chirag R Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454