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 . This Office Action is in reply to communication filed on 07/21/2026.
Response to Arguments
In this reply, claims 1-20 are pending and represent a “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EFFICIENT NETWORK ISOLATION AND LOAD BALANCING IN A MULTI-TENANT CLUSTER ENVIRONMENT”. No Claim has been amended or cancelled. Applicant's arguments filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant argues that Borthakur merely performs conventional routing based upon addresses or physical location and does not disclose partition-based ordering. The argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely upon Borthakur alone for the ordering limitation. Borthakur teaches routing/interconnectivity information between networking devices and groups of computing devices (par. 0049), routing through interconnected switches and routers (par. 0073-0079), virtual machines assigned to respective partitions (par. 0112), and routing information associated with respective VMIs (par. 0113). Gray supplies the additional ordering technique. Applicant further argues that Gray concerns traversal of a work vehicle and therefore does not teach network routing. This argument is likewise not persuasive because Gray is not relied upon to teach the network environment or Borthakur’s virtual-machine partitions. Rather, Gray is relied upon for its disclosed technique of linking nodes, determining an efficient order or sequence of the nodes, and generating a path through the nodes according to that order. See Gray (par. 0029, 0052-0057).
Thus, Borthakur supplies the network, routing, end nodes, and end-node/partition relationship, while Gray supplies the ordering used in determining the path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Gray’s ordered-node path technique as predictably applicable to Borthakur’s route-determination problem.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the combined teachings of Borthakur and Gra. The Rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 USC § 103 below is maintained.
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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur, US 20150324215 A1 (hereinafter Bor), in view of Gray et al., US 20040193348 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bor teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Bor discloses a method for supporting load balancing in a multi-tenant cluster environment (abstract, par. 0055, and 0069), comprising:
providing a subnet of interconnected switches (fig. 3, e.g. private subnet 391 and 393), wherein the interconnected switches (Switches 315) interconnect a plurality of end nodes (Virtual machines 307
and computing systems 345; see par. 0073 and 0074); and calculating routes between the interconnected switches (par. 0073 and 0110; see also fig. 6), said calculating the routes utilizing an ordering of the plurality of end nodes, said ordering being based upon partitions to which each end node is assigned (see par. 0094 and 0112; virtual machine (end node) partition, VMl1-VMln).
However, Bor does not specifically disclose the details of utilizing an ordering of the plurality of end nodes, said ordering being based upon partitions to which each end node is assigned. This feature is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Gray (see Gray, par. 0055 and 0056). In the same field of
endeavor, Gray discloses “...determine the optimal solution for efficient ordering of the partition nodes”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the optimal solution of Gray within the system of Bor, and use it to calculate the routes between the switches because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. In addition, "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference...rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Gray provides reason to combine, stating that generating a planned path by looping through the ordered partition nodes or edges, interconnects the partition nodes in the determined order in par. 0029. By this rationale, claim 1 is rejected.
6. Regarding claims 2-20, the combination Bor-Gray teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a linear forwarding table based upon the calculated routes (Gray, fig. 10, par. 0081).
The method of claim 2, wherein a subnet manager running at a switch of the interconnected switches calculates the routes within the interconnected switches (Bor, resource manager 524l see par. 0107).
The method of claim 3, wherein the generated linear forwarding table is set at a switch of the interconnected switches (Gray, fig. 10 combined with Bor, fig. 3).
The method of claim 1, wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches comprises a deterministic mechanism (Bor, Fig. 3, par. 0073).
The method of claim 5, wherein the routes are calculated starting from a destination and ending at a source (Bor, par. 0053 and 0073).
The method of claim 6, wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches utilizes an isolation policy of at least one of the partitions (Bor, 0055).
A system for supporting load balancing in a multi-tenant cluster environment (Bor, abstract, par. 0055, and 0069), comprising: a subnet of interconnected switches (Bor, fig. 3, e.g. private subnet and 391 393), wherein the interconnected switches (Bor, Switches 315), interconnect a plurality of end nodes (Bor, Virtual machines 307 and computing systems 345; see par. 0073 and 0074); and wherein routes are calculated between the interconnected switches, said calculating the routes utilizing an ordering of the plurality of end nodes, said ordering being based upon partitions to which each end node is assigned (Bor, see par. 0094 and 0112; virtual machine (end node) partition, VMl1-VMln; See Gray, par. 0039, 0055 and 0056). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 8 is rejected.
The system of claim 8, further comprising: wherein a linear forwarding table is generated based upon the calculated routes (Gray, fig. 10, par. 0081).
10. The system of claim 9, wherein a subnet manager running at a switch of the interconnected switches calculates the routes within the interconnected switches (Bor, resource manager 524l see par. 0107).
The system of claim 10, wherein the generated linear forwarding table is set at a switch of the interconnected switches (Gray, fig. 10 combined with Bor, fig. 3).
The system of claim 8, wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches comprises a deterministic mechanism (Fig. 3, par. 0073).
The system of claim 12, wherein the routes are calculated starting from a destination and ending at a source (Bor, par. 0053 and 0073).
The system of claim 13, wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches utilizes an isolation policy of at least one of the partitions (Gray, par. 0055).
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon for supporting load balancing in a multi-tenant cluster environment (Bor, abstract, par. 0055, and 0069), which when read and executed cause a computer to perform steps comprising: managing a subnet of interconnected switches (Gor, fig. 3, e.g. private subnet 391 and 393), wherein the interconnected switches (switches 315) interconnect a plurality of end nodes (Bor, Virtual machines 307 and computing systems 345; see par. 0073 and 0074); and calculating routes within the interconnected switches, said calculating the routes utilizing an ordering of the plurality of end nodes, said ordering being based upon partitions to which each end node is assigned. (Bor, see par. 0094 and 0112; virtual machine (end node) partition, VMl1-VMln; See Gray, par. 0039, 0055 and 0056). The same motivation and reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 1 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 8 is rejected.
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, the steps further comprising: generating a linear forwarding table based upon the calculated routes (Gray, fig. 10, par. 0081).
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein a subnet manager running at a switch of the interconnected switches calculates the routes within the interconnected switches (Bor, resource manager 524l see par. 0107).
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the generated linear forwarding table is set at a switch of the interconnected switches (Gray, fig. 10 combined with Bor, fig. 3).
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches comprises a deterministic mechanism (Fig. 3, par. 0073).
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the routes are calculated starting from a destination and ending at a source; and wherein calculating routes within the interconnected switches utilizes an isolation policy of at least one of the partitions (Bor, par. 0053 and 0073; see also Gray, par. 0055).
Double Patenting
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 11677667 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention defines merely an obvious variation of the patent as shown in the claims mapping table below:
CLAIMED MAPPING TABLE
Set A
Claim 1 limitation
Set B
Claim 1 limitation
Assessment Reasoning
Examiner Reasoning
Method for supporting load balancing in a multi-tenant cluster
environment
Same preambule
Same
Identified field and objective
providing a subnet of
interconnected switches
Providing plurality of
interconnected switches
Obvious Variant
Subset is an obvious selection of a plurality
Switch interconnect
plurality of end nodes
Nodes attached to
switches via links
Same
Equivalent structure
Calculating routes
between switches
Calculating links via
cluster
Same
Same functional step
Routes based on ordering of nodes
Routing based on weight parameters
Obvious Variant
Ordering is an alternative metric to
weights
Ordering based on partitions
Nodes assigned to partitions (claim 4-5)
Obvious Variant
Partition-based
grouping already disclosed
Routing uses partition-based ordering
Routing based on weights + Partitions
Obvious Variant
Substituting ordering
for weights ordering for weights is obvious
Claim 2 limitation
Claim 2 limitation
Generating linear forwarding table
Routing decisions inherently produce forwarding behavior
Obvious
Forwarding tables are inherent or routine implementation of
routing
Claim 3 limitation
Claim 3 limitation
Subset manager calculates routes
Routing logic performed within
network elements
obvious
Assigning computation to a specific entity is
routine design choice
Claim 4 limitation
Claim 4 limitation
Forwarding table installed at switch
Forwarding table assigned to nodes
Obvious
Routing must be
implemented at switches (inherency)
Claim 5 Limitation
Claim 5 Limitation
Deterministic routing
Dynamic routing
Obvious
Known alternatives
Claim 6 Limitation
Claim 6 Limitation
Destination to source calculation
Isolation policy
Obvious
Reverse path computation is a known equivalent
routing approach
Claim 7 Limitation
Claim 7 Limitation
Isolation policy
Isolation policy
Similar/same
Routing is calculated
based on the policy
The first set of claims, claims 1-7, of the patent application are rejected under the doctrine on non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of the reference application. This set of claims is exemplary.
Claims, claims 8-20 are rejected for similar reasons as shown in the table above. Accordingly, all the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct over the claims of the reference application.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
August 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights