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 .
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on November 14, 2024 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 4-8, 13, and 17-19 are objected to.
Claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected.
Priority
This application is a continuation of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2022/130558 filed on November 8, 2022, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210429337.9 filed on April 22, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of Chinese Patent Application No. 202210429337.9, as required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, no English language copy of the foreign document has been provided. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(ii), Examiner may specifically require an English translation, and in future submissions of applications, Applicant is requested to provide an English translation.
Should Applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. See 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3)(iii) and 37 CFR 41.154(b). Failure to provide the certified translations may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 4, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cidon et al. (US 2021/0067461 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cidon)
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20,
Cidon teaches:
“presenting/present a virtual network configuration interface to a user” (paragraph [0226]). [The controller cluster receives data about external machine attributes and locations of the particular tenant from a user interface that the controller cluster provides ([0226]).]
“receiving/receive, from the user and through the virtual network configuration interface, an attribute of a target virtual network in a public cloud and bearing a target service” (paragraphs [0002], [0011], [0182], [0185], [0226]). [Users can access business services through public Internet and cellular networks using mobile devices, mostly smart phones ([0002]). Different virtual networks are established over several public cloud datacenters for different entities; for each entity, a set of public cloud datacenters are identified to connect a set of machines of the entity, and managed forwarding nodes (MFNs) are deployed for the entity ([0011]). When an MFN receives a data message that should be forwarded to another cloud forwarding element (CFE) of another MFN on an interface associated with the virtual network, an intermediate MFN performs a process ([0182]). The process sets the source and destination IP addresses in the virtual network (VN) hop tunnel header to the ingress and egress CFE's that are specified in the tenant tunnel header, as well as the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) attributes, such as the UDP port ([0185]). The controller cluster receives data about external machine attributes and locations of the particular tenant from a user interface that the controller cluster provides ([0226]).] (NOTE: The data about the machine attributes received by the controller cluster through a user interface are equivalent to “receiving, from the user and through the virtual network configuration interface, an attribute of a target virtual network,” the public cloud datacenter to the “public cloud,” and the business service being accessed by the user to “target service.”)
“providing/provide the attribute to a target node in the public cloud, wherein the attribute of the target virtual network is used by the target node to join the target virtual network” (paragraph [0019]). [The dedicated managed forwarding nodes (MFNs), which are specifically deployed to process data messages for just one tenant, have the same attributes and perform the same operations as the shared MFNs that are deployed and used by multiple entities ([0019]).] (NOTE: The MFN being deployed is equivalent to the “target node,” the attributes provided by the dedicated MFN that are available to the shared MFNs teach “providing the attribute to a target node in the public cloud,” and the utilization of MFN attributes during deployment is equivalent to “the attribute of the target virtual network is used by the target node to join the target virtual network,” were deploy is equivalent to “join.”)
“a memory configured to store instructions, and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions” as recited in Claim 14 and “A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” as recited in Claim 20 (paragraph [0371]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15,
Cidon teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 14.
Cidon teaches:
“wherein the attribute comprises one or more of: a topology identifier identifying a topology structure of the target virtual network; an acceleration identifier identifying an access policy of the target virtual network; a routing policy, or of the target virtual network; or a source routing table” (paragraph [0219]). [In order to account for the various bandwidth reservation that intersect over the network topology, the virtual network provider (VNP) defines the routing over a reserved bandwidth path statically, so that data message flows always traverse through the same routes that were reserved for the bandwidth requirements ([0219]).] (NOTE: The static routing over a reserved bandwidth path is equivalent to the “routing policy” and the network topology to the “topology structure of the target virtual network.”)
Regarding Claim 12,
Cidon teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
“receiving node information from the target node in the target virtual network” (paragraph [0223]). [For the special case of a request for additional bandwidth for a route that already has reserved bandwidth, the controller cluster will first delete the current bandwidth reservation between nodes A and B and will calculate the path for the total bandwidth request between these nodes; to do this, the information held for each node includes the bandwidth reserved for each tag, or each source and destination branches ([0223]).]
“setting the attribute based on the node information” (paragraph [0185]). [The process sets the source and destination IP addresses in the virtual network (VN) hop tunnel header to the ingress and egress CFE's that are specified in the tenant tunnel header, as well as the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) attributes, such as the UDP port ([0185]).] (NOTE: The source and destination IP addresses and the UDP attributes are equivalent to the “attributes based on the node information.”)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 3, 9-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Cidon et al. (US 2021/0067461 A1, hereinafter referred to as Cidon) in view of Zhang (US 2018/0041425 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16,
Cidon teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 2 and 15.
Cidon does not teach:
“providing, when the target node serves as an access node, one or more of the topology identifier, the acceleration identifier, the routing policy, or the source routing table to the access node.”
“providing, when the target node serves as a forwarding node, one or more of the topology identifier, the acceleration identifier or the routing policy to the forwarding node.”
Zhang teaches:
“providing, when the target node serves as an access node, one or more of the topology identifier, the acceleration identifier, the routing policy, or the source routing table to the access node” (paragraph [0198]). [When an end point is associated with a VN Node, this VN node becomes an anchor point for the end point, and packets destined for the end point are routed to the anchor point, which can be an access node, via the VN tunnels and then transmitted from the anchor point to the end point; the connectivity management (CM) entity causes the anchor point to change in response to mobility and cause v-router routing tables to update accordingly; the association of an end point to a VN Node is determined based on the end point's MAC state, mobility velocity, and other network requirements ([0198]).] (NOTE: The access node acting as an anchor node is equivalent to “when the target node serves as an access node” and the updated routing tables to “providing the source routing table to the access node.”
“providing, when the target node serves as a forwarding node, one or more of the topology identifier, the acceleration identifier or the routing policy to the forwarding node” (paragraph [0080]). [Each physical network node supporting a tunnel may be configured with a set of routing rules which associates a VN tunnel identifier or destination network node identifier with a next network node; when a packet specifies the VN tunnel identifier or destination network node identifier, it is forwarded to the
associated next network node ([0080]).] (NOTE: The set of routing rules are equivalent to the “routing policy” and the next network node to the “forwarding node.”)
Both Cidon and Zhang teach systems with virtual networks that route data in cloud environments, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cidon disclosure, the ability to distinguish between access node and forwarding node processing, as taught by Zhang. Such inclusion would have increased the flexibility of the virtual networking capabilities, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9,
Cidon teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Cidon teaches:
“receiving, from the user and through the virtual network configuration interface” (paragraph [0226]). [The controller cluster receives data about external machine attributes and locations of the particular tenant from a user interface that the controller cluster provides ([0226]).] (NOTE: The data about external machine attributes and locations of the particular tenant is equivalent to “the virtual network configuration interface,” since the network has been previously disclosed as virtual.)
Cidon does not teach:
“wherein the attribute comprises at least one of an access policy of the target virtual network or a routing policy of the target virtual network.”
“providing, when the target node serves as a forwarding node, one or more of the topology identifier, the acceleration identifier or the routing policy to the forwarding node.”
Zhang teaches:
“wherein the attribute comprises at least one of an access policy of the target virtual network or a routing policy of the target virtual network” (paragraphs [0080], [0125]). [Each physical network node supporting a tunnel may be configured with a set of routing rules which associates a VN tunnel identifier or destination network node identifier with a next network node ([0080]). The routing tables are provided in a two-part format: a first part of the routing table specifies associations between destination VN nodes and next logical tunnels to use for forward packets toward such destination VN nodes, and a second part of the routing table specifies associations between destination endpoints (such as mobile UEs) and anchor VN nodes which are currently in communication with the destination endpoints ([0125]). (NOTE: The set of routing rules and the routing tables are equivalent to the “routing policy.”) (NOTE: The set of routing rules are equivalent to the “routing policy.”)
“wherein receiving the attribute comprises receiving, … through the virtual network configuration interface, at least one of the access policy or the routing policy” (paragraphs [0008], [0125]). [The plurality of v-routers operative to receive and transmit packets across the network based on defined routing rules for each VN ([0008]). The routing tables are provided in a two-part format: a first part of the routing table specifies associations between destination VN nodes and next logical tunnels to use for forward packets toward such destination VN nodes, and a second part of the routing table specifies associations between destination endpoints (such as mobile UEs) and anchor VN nodes which are currently in communication with the destination endpoints ([0125]). (NOTE: The set of routing rules and the routing tables are equivalent to the “routing policy.” The “virtual network configuration interface” was previously disclosed by Cidon.)
“wherein the access policy or the routing policy meets a customer level of the target service or a service type of the target service” (paragraph [0069]). (paragraphs [0008], [0069]). [The plurality of v-routers operative to receive and transmit packets across the network based on defined routing rules for each VN ([0008]). A service is provided by the network operator, or by network customer such as a business, utility, government, or other organization; examples of services include: providing audio and/or video content to stream or download to an endpoint such as a UE, storage and/or processing of data from an endpoint such as a UE, UE-to-UE messaging services, machine-to-machine communications such as utility meter reporting, remote data storage, and/or remote computing services ([0069]).] (NOTE: The set of routing rules are equivalent to the “routing policy” and any of the services provided by the network operator or by network customer to “a service type of the target service.”)
Both Cidon and Zhang teach systems with virtual networks that route data in cloud environments, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cidon disclosure, the ability to distinguish between access policy and the routing policy, as taught by Zhang. Such inclusion would have increased the flexibility of the virtual networking capabilities, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10,
Cidon in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 9.
Cidon does not teach:
“wherein the access policy comprises one or more of a proximity-based access policy, a delay-first access policy, or cost-first access policy.”
Zhang teaches:
“wherein the access policy comprises one or more of a proximity-based access policy, a delay-first access policy, or cost-first access policy” (paragraphs [0067], [0081]). [A network can include at least one of a radio access portion which interfaces directly with UEs via radio access and a fixed line portion which interfaces directly with UEs via fixed line access, in combination with a backhaul portion which connects different network devices of the network together ([0067]). The location of VN nodes performing in network data processing and/or data caching can be selected based on criteria such as but not limited to: performance, cost, latency, communication overhead, and quality of service ([0081]).] (NOTE: The radio access is equivalent to the “access policy” and the cost criteria to the “cost-first access policy.”)
Both Cidon and Zhang teach systems with virtual networks that route data in cloud environments, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cidon disclosure, the ability to select VN nodes based on criteria such as cost, and communication overhead, as taught by Zhang. Such inclusion would have increased the flexibility of the virtual networking capabilities, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11,
Cidon in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 9.
Cidon does not teach:
“wherein the routing policy comprises one or more of a maximum hop count-based routing policy, a delay-first routing policy, a cost-first routing policy, a packet loss rate-first routing policy, or a topology identifier-based routing policy.”
Zhang teaches:
“wherein the routing policy comprises one or more of a maximum hop count-based routing policy, a delay-first routing policy, a cost-first routing policy, a packet loss rate-first routing policy, or a topology identifier-based routing policy” (paragraph [0081]). [The location of VN nodes performing in network data processing and/or data caching can be selected based on criteria such as but not limited to: performance, cost, latency, communication overhead, and quality of service ([0081]).] (NOTE: If the selection for routing to a node is based on cost, that is equivalent to a “cost-first routing policy.”)
Both Cidon and Zhang teach systems with virtual networks that route data in cloud environments, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Cidon disclosure, the ability to select VN nodes based on criteria such as cost, , as taught by Zhang. Such inclusion would have increased the flexibility of the virtual networking capabilities, and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 13, and 17-19 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.
Claim 4 recites the following subject matter which was not found in the prior art:
wherein the attribute comprises a topology identifier identifying a topology structure of the target virtual network, and wherein before providing the attribute to the target node in the public cloud, the method further comprises: determining the target node based on the topology structure.
Because Claims 5-8 depend from Claim 4, they also recite allowable subject matter.
Claim 17 similarly recites the following subject matter which was not found in the prior art:
wherein the attribute comprises a topology identifier identifying a topology structure of the target virtual network, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to cause the controller to determine the target node based on the topology structure.
Because Claims 18-19 depend from Claim 17, they also recite allowable subject matter.
Claim 13 recites the following subject matter which was not found in the prior art:
wherein the target service comprises a cloud meeting or online education.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights