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 .
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 obviousness-type 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); 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) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
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).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12132660. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations are similar in scope with obvious wording variations.
Instant Application
US 12132660
Claim 21. network device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media, the one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the network device to perform operations comprising:
determining, from a traffic policy, whether a traffic flow should be symmetrical;
in response to determining from the traffic policy that the traffic flow should be symmetrical, performing a flow lookup on the traffic flow to determine if the network device originated the traffic flow;
in response to determining that the network device did not originate the traffic flow, determining a second network device that originated the traffic flow; and
assigning the traffic flow to the second network device in order to maintain symmetry for the traffic flow.
Claim 1. A network device comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media, the one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the network device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a handshake message for a traffic flow from a Software-Defined Wide-Area Network (SDWAN); determining, from a traffic policy, whether the traffic flow should be symmetrical;
in response to determining from the traffic policy that the traffic flow should be symmetrical, performing a flow lookup on the traffic flow to determine if the network device originated the traffic flow;
in response to determining that the network device did not originate the traffic flow, determining a second network device that originated the traffic flow; and
sending the handshake message for the traffic flow to the second network device in order to maintain symmetry for the traffic flow.
Note that the table above only compared the conflicting claim 21. However, the Applicant is advised that the other independent and dependent claims in instant application also have their conflicting claims in US 12132660 and thus are rejected on a similar fashion as that in the table above, resulting in a double patenting rejection to all claims in instant application.
Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US 20160080502) in view of Panchalingam (US 20170366506).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 21/28/35, Yadav teaches A network device ([0344], “configurable device 124”) comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media, the one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the network device to perform operations comprising:
...
in response to determining from the traffic policy that the traffic flow should be symmetrical ([0344], “reducing and/or eliminating asymmetric session flows using a flow table to determine a forwarding path based, at least in part, on the direction of incoming traffic in order to eliminate to eliminate asymmetric flows.” Since a configurable device 124 is to avoid asymmetric traffic flows, so traffic flows should be symmetric.), performing a flow lookup ([0344], “flow tables may be maintained at the configurable device 124”) on the traffic flow to determine if the network device ([0344], “configurable device 124”) originated the traffic flow ([0344], the configurable device 124” looks at “direction of incoming traffic” to determine origination of the traffic flow.);
in response to determining that the network device did not originate the traffic flow ([0361], “The configurable device 124 may look up the flow in its flow table and forward the flow and all of its packets on the same interface that it originally received the flow from the Client.” Since the traffic flow is “originally received from a client,” so the configurable device 124 did not originate the traffic flow.), determining a second network device that originated the traffic flow ([0361], “interface that it originally received the flow from the Client,” the client originated the traffic flow.); and
assigning the traffic flow to the second network device in order to maintain symmetry for the traffic flow ([0361], the configurable device 124 may “forward the flow and all of its packets on the same interface that it originally received the flow from the Client. As a result, symmetry is preserved.”).
However, Yadav does not specifically disclose determining, from a traffic policy, whether a traffic flow should be symmetrical.
In an analogous art, Panchalingam discloses determining, from a traffic policy, whether a traffic flow should be symmetrical ([0064], “The policy can cause switches 504 and 508 to provide guaranteed symmetric bi-directional policy based redirect of traffic. This means that data packet transmitted between endpoint 506 and endpoint 510 will be consistently be directed to the same one of service nodes 514, 516 and 518.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yadav to specify traffic policy as taught by Panchalingam. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enforce symmetric bi-direction traffic flow.
Claim(s) 22, 29 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav in view of Panchalingam, and further in view of THAKKAR (US 20160105392).
Regarding claim(s) 22/29/36, THAKKAR teaches wherein both the network device and the second network device are Multi-Tenant (MT) Gateways ([Fig.1 and 0038], gateway 184 and gateway 124 are multi-tenant gateways.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yadav to specify gateway as taught by THAKKAR. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to provide VPN connectivity between two gateways.
Claim(s) 23, 30 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav in view of Panchalingam, and further in view of Gangur (US 11991211).
Regarding claim(s) 23/30/37, Gangur teaches receiving a message ([Col.49, lines 60-67], handshake message) for the traffic flow from a Software-Defined Wide-Area Network (SDWAN) (“an endpoint within SD-WAN 2322 may send a packet (e.g., a SYN TCP packet to start a handshake) to an endpoint within internet 2312.”) prior to determining whether the traffic flow should be symmetrical ([Col.49, lines 49-60], “enforce traffic symmetricity through firewalls 2150A and 2150B”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yadav to specify handshake message as taught by Gangur. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enforce traffic symmetricity.
Claim(s) 24, 31 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav in view of Panchalingam and Gangur, and further in view of Beaudoin (US 20050169314).
Regarding claim(s) 24/31/38, Beaudoin teaches communicating the message for the traffic flow to the second network device across a Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunnel ([0041], “a generic routing encapsulation ("GRE") tunnel 58 is used to essentially create a private network within the larger network.” And [0048], “GRE tunnel 58 is preferably symmetric in nature.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Yadav to specify GRE tunnel as taught by Beaudoin. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to create private network within a larger network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 25-27, 32-34 and 39-40 is/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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
