DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The Instant Application, filed 09/24/2024, is a continuation of 18/349778, filed 07/10/2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,184,736 which claims priority from provisional application 63/495021, filed 04/07/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 3 contains illegible and unclear elements and terms. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claim(s). Claim 1 of the Patent contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application as shown in the table below and as such anticipate(s) the claim of the instant application.
“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).
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,184,736
1. A method comprising: receiving a notification, at an edge router in a network, of an update to a controller to which the edge router is configured to connect, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system;
adjusting a length of time of an expiry timer during which the edge router attempts to connect to the controller, based on the notification, wherein adjusting the length allows for the update to occur.
1. A method comprising: receiving a notification from a vSmart controller to an edge router that an upgrade to the vSmart controller will occur, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system, and wherein the vSmart controller runs as a virtual machine (VM) and maintains a control plane connection with one or more edge routers in an overlay network; increasing a length of time of an expiry timer in which the edge router attempts to connect to the vSmart controller based on the notification; and connecting to the vSmart controller once the length of time has passed.
---
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) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gali et al. (2022/0286360).
As per claim 1, Gali et al. teaches a method comprising: receiving a notification, at a subscriber/client device in a network, of an update to a controller to which the subscriber/client device is configured to connect, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system [paragraphs 0022-0024];
adjusting a length of time of an expiry timer during which the subscriber/client device attempts to connect to the controller, based on the notification, wherein adjusting the length allows for the update to occur [paragraphs 0065-0067].
Although Gali et al. teaches receiving a notification at a subscriber/client device as above, it fails to explicitly teach receiving a notification at an edge router. But teaches an edge router performing various other functions [paragraphs 0030-0031].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gali et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another (a subscriber/client device in place of an edge router) in order to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 2, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: managing connectivity of the edge router to the controller upon the expiry timer is expired [paragraph 0169].
As per claim 3, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein managing the connectivity comprises: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and reconverging routing states between the controller and the edge router after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0027].
As per claim 4, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein managing the connectivity comprises: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and connecting to a new controller after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0190].
As per claim 5, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 4, wherein connecting to the new controller comprises: purging all routes learned from the controller; and initiating a connection to the new controller after the routes are purged [paragraph 0197].
As per claim 7, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the length of time of the expiry timer includes increasing the length of time [paragraph 0183].
As per claim 8, Gali et al. teaches a network subscriber/client device comprising: one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: receive a notification of an update to a controller to which the network subscriber/client device is configured to connect, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system, wherein the network subscriber/client device, the controller and the centralized network management system are configured to operate in a network [paragraphs 0022-0024];
adjust a length of time of an expiry timer during which the network subscriber/client device attempts to connect to the controller, based on the notification, wherein adjusting the length allows for the update to occur [paragraphs 0065-0067].
Although Gali et al. teaches receiving a notification of an update to a controller to which a network subscriber/client device is configured to connect as above, it fails to explicitly teach receiving a notification of an update to a controller to which a network router device is configured to connect. But teaches a network router performing various other functions [paragraphs 0030-0031].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gali et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another (a subscriber/client device in place of a network router) in order to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 9, Gali et al. teaches the network router of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to manage connectivity of the network router to the controller upon the expiry timer is expired [paragraph 0169].
As per claim 10, Gali et al. teaches the network router of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to manage the connectivity by: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and reconverging routing states between the controller and the network router after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0027].
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gali et al. (2022/0286360) in view of Prabhu et al. (2020/0382381).
As per claim 6, Gali et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Prabhu et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is a vSmart controller [Prabhu et al., paragraph 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gali et al. with Prabhu et al. in order to design network hardware resource based on performance considerations.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444