DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14-16, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262 in view of U.S. Publication No. 20140301395 to Khanal et al.
Claim 1 of the pending application is similar to claim 1 lines 1-9 and 13-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
However, Claim 1 of the pending application claims an “IP address” and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262 claims an “identifier”. Khanal et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0265 and 0305 wherein the identifier of a host is an IP address, which can be a source IP address or a destination IP address as obtained from a routing table. Refer to Sections 0047-0305. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the “IP address” of the pending application is an “identifier” of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262. One would have been motivated to do so since an identifier of a host can be an IP address in an IP network to distinguish between hosts and facilitate data routing.
Claim 2 of the pending application is similar to claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 3 of the pending application is similar to claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 4 of the pending application is similar to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 5 of the pending application is similar to claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 6 of the pending application is similar to claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 7 of the pending application is similar to claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 8 of the pending application is similar to claims 2, 11, 15, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 9 of the pending application is similar to claims 4 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 10 of the pending application is similar to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 12 of the pending application is similar to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 13 of the pending application is similar to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 14 of the pending application is similar to claim 14 lines 1-15 and 29-39 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
However, Claim 14 of the pending application claims an “IP address” and claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262 claims an “identifier”. Khanal et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0265 and 0305 wherein the identifier of a host is an IP address, which can be a source IP address or a destination IP address as obtained from a routing table. Refer to Sections 0047-0305. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the “IP address” of the pending application is an “identifier” of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262. One would have been motivated to do so since an identifier of a host can be an IP address in an IP network to distinguish between hosts and facilitate data routing.
Claim 15 of the pending application is similar to claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 16 of the pending application is similar to claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 17 of the pending application is similar to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 18 of the pending application is similar to claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 19 of the pending application is similar to claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
Claim 20 of the pending application is similar to claim 18 lines 1-11 and 19-35 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262.
However, Claim 20 of the pending application claims an “IP address” and claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262 claims an “identifier”. Khanal et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0265 and 0305 wherein the identifier of a host is an IP address, which can be a source IP address or a destination IP address as obtained from a routing table. Refer to Sections 0047-0305. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the “IP address” of the pending application is an “identifier” of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,262. One would have been motivated to do so since an identifier of a host can be an IP address in an IP network to distinguish between hosts and facilitate data routing.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 11 is 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are allowed (pending double patenting rejections above).
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance (pending double patenting rejections above):
Independent claims 1, 14, and 20:
U.S. Patent No. 10,715,427 to Raj et al disclose a method comprising, by a first edge router configured to operate at first site of a SDN:
… a second edge router configured to operate at a second site of the SDN … a first host located within the first site, wherein the second site is different from the first site … a first identifier of the first host.
…
…
Receiving, from the second edge router, a data packet destined to the first host, wherein the data packet is sent from a second host located within the second site, wherein the data packet includes the first identifier of the first host as a destination identifier …
…
…
Applying, to the data packet, one or more policies associated with … the destination group.
Causing the data packet to be routed to the first host within the first site. [Raj, column 3, lines 23-40: “In an example, network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may each be present at the head office or a branch office. In the example of FIG. 1, network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, may each be present at a head office, network nodes 112 and 114 may each be present at a first branch office, and network nodes 116 and 118 may each be present at a second branch office. Network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may each include a routing agent (not shown). Network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may each communicate with controller 102 via a protocol. In an example, a routing agent may allow the abstraction of a network node so that it can be managed by controller 102. In an example, network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may each include an edge device, which, in an example, may represent overlay endpoints for each of the network sites of an enterprise. For example, network nodes 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 118 may each represent an endpoint for an SD-WAN”, The routers of the SD-WAN are configured by the controller (see element 102) to connect edge devices in different branch/head offices (or sites, see fig. 1 and column 1, lines 40-56). SD-WAN is an overlay technology to control packet routing (see column 1, lines 57-67) Routing decisions are for connecting particular endpoints (or hosts within sites) in the SD-WAN network (see column 2, lines 12-24). Route calculation is determined based on a destination (see column 5, lines 18-23). The generation engine (see fig. 1, element 154) generates polices to be used with the routing information (see column 6, lines 32-40).].
Raj et al do not disclose … a second edge router configured to operate at a second site of the SDN … a first host located within the first site, wherein the second site is different from the first site … a first IP address of the first host; … ; … ; receiving, from the second edge router, a data packet destined to the first host, wherein the data packet is sent from a second host located within the second site, wherein the data packet includes the first IP address of the first host as a destination IP address …
U.S. Publication No. 20140301395 to Khanal et al disclose in Figures 1-8 and Sections 0265 and 0305 wherein the identifier of a host is an IP address, which can be a source IP address or a destination IP address as obtained from a routing table. Refer to Sections 0047-0305.
Raj et al and Khanal et al do not disclose … receiving, from the second edge router, a data packet destined to the first host, wherein the data packet is sent from a second host located within the second site, wherein the data packet includes the first IP address of the first host as a destination IP address, wherein the data packet includes a second identifier of a second group associated with the second host; determining that the second group is a source group of the data packet based on the second identifier of the second group in the data packet; determining that the first group is a destination group of the data packet based on the first IP address in the data packet; applying, to the data packet, one or more policies associated with a combination of the source group and the destination group …
U.S. Publication No. 20200236042 to Gafni et al disclose in Figures 1-7 a system wherein entities 14 are each grouped within one group A, group B, or group C in the network and entities 14 transmits packets to one another via network device. Each packet includes a source identifier and a destination identifier. Network device includes a memory that stores several routing tables including: a source-group mapping table 30 that maps source identifiers to source-groups, a destination-group mapping table 32 that maps destination identifiers to destination-groups, and an intergroup access-control list 34 that maps source-destination-group pairs to forwarding rules. Upon receiving a data packet, network device determines the source identifier of the packet, and maps the source identifier to a source group according to the source-group mapping table 30 (claimed “wherein the data packet includes a second identifier of a second group associated with the second host; determining that the second group is a source group of the data packet based on the second identifier of the second group in the data packet”). Network device then determines the destination identifier and the corresponding destination group of the data packet (claimed “wherein the data packet includes the first IP address of the first host as a destination IP address; … ; determining that the first group is a destination group of the data packet based on the first IP address in the data packet”). Network device then determines a forwarding rule for a source-destination pair including the found source-group and the found destination-group for the packet in the intergroup access-control list 34 (claimed “applying, to the data packet, one or more policies associated with a combination of the source group and the destination group ”). Refer to Sections 0043-0071. By applying Gafni to Raj et al: The system of Raj et al can use both the source group and the destination group to determine how to forward a packet.
However, none of the prior art disclose the limitations “… receiving, from a second edge router configured to operate at a second site of the SDN, a request control message requesting a first identifier of a first group associated with a first host located within the first site, wherein the second site is different from the first site, and wherein the control message comprises a first Internet Protocol (IP) address of the first host; determining the first identifier of the first group based on the first IP address;
sending, to the second edge router, a response control message including the first identifier of the first group associated with the first host … ”, and can be logically combined with Raj et al, Khanal et al, and Gafni et al.
7. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference Sundararajan et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0112034), teaches receiving a request for a WAN optimized connection between a first and second host (see fig. 5).
The reference, Moreno et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0044565), teaches performing a lookup request for a source seeking a destination address (see fig. 7).
The reference, Sethi et al. (US Patent No. 10,862,758), teaches generating a SD-WAN configuration and configuring impacted nodes (see fig. 4).
The reference, Theogaraj et al. (US Patent No. 10,855,575), teaches dynamically routing traffic in a SD-WAN (see fig. 3).
The reference, Khan et al. (US Patent No. 9,467,478), teaches an overlay management protocol for secure routing (see fig. 6).
The reference, Dunbar et al. (NPL on PTO-892), teaches border gateway protocol (BGP) usage in SDWAN overlay networks.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y NG whose telephone number is (571)272-3124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm-9pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/Christine Ng/
Examiner, AU 2464
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights