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
This office action is in response to amendment/reconsideration filed on 06/30/2026, the amendment/reconsideration has been considered. Claims 1, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination as cited below.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered “non-transitory” claims 2-11 should be renumbered as 11-20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanda et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0034051 A1), hereinafter “Chanda” in view of Sumit et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0188770 A1), hereinafter “Sumit”.
As to claim 1. Chanda teaches, a method comprising:
receiving a data message via a logical router from an external network (Chanda, [0006], each of the service components has an uplink interface (port) for communicating with an external network…);
performing a lookup into routing rules (Chanda, [0004], [0005], [0015], each of these routing components is separately assigned a set of routes and a set of logical interfaces, and [0009], some embodiments configure a set of database tables(e.g. forwarding tables) on the MHFE…);
determining a matching between the routing rules and conditions and actions of the data message (Chanda, [0010], [0015], the physical locator information …specifies the tunnel endpoint addresses …by locating the endpoints, the MFEs and MHFEs are able to establish tunnels… and exchange the network data…);
providing a data structure for a unique identifier based on the matching, the data structure comprises an instruction (Chanda, [0009], configures a set of database tables…using an open source protocol… to enable the MHFE to implement the logical network forwarding elements… and [0012], generate a record and store…the logical switch…MAC address… and the locator field…., these “records” are the data structures containing forwarding instructions i.e. locator = next hop.);
processing the data according to the instruction (Chanda, [0005], each of the host machines executes an MFE that processes packets sent to and received from the end machines…); and
forwarding, using a router and through a physical network, the data message according to the instruction (Chanda, [0005], The MFEs …exchange these packets with other MFEs…a s well as the MHFEs e.g., through tunnels).
Chanda however is silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the instruction redirects the data message to a third-party service, the third party- service being attached by defining a service attachment interface for the logical router, a logical switch being defined to connect to the service attachment interface, a service interface of the third-party service being associated with a service interface connected to the service attachment interface.
Sumit discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the instruction redirects the data message to a third-party service, the third party- service being attached by defining a service attachment interface for the logical router, a logical switch being defined to connect to the service attachment interface, a service interface of the third-party service being associated with a service interface connected to the service attachment interface (Sum, [0089-0091], VR1 may modify packet 142 to produce and send modified network packet 146 to service device 104. Rewrite the destination MAC, decrement the TTL. [0104-0105], virtual switch VSW3, add tag 174, restore original packet 172, Sum further discloses, [0091-0094], switch E3, sends modified packet 146, switch E4 forward packet 154. [0097], teaches, “controller 18 may implement any desired path through switches C1, C2…”. Instruction redirects the data message to third party service [0088-0091]. Third party service attached by defining a service attachment interface for the logical router [0090-0091] e.g., service device 104 send network packet 150 via virtual switch VSW5. Service interface of the third party service associated with service interface connected to the service attachment interface [0091], Port P3 serves as interface IF3, Port P3 serves as interface IF4.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Sumit” into those of “Chanda” to provide a controller on computing equipment that may be used to control switches in a network. The switches may include physical switches and logical switches such as hypervisor switches. End hosts and service devices may be coupled to the switches in the network. The controller may perform service insertion by redirecting network traffic through one or more selected service devices. The controller may determine which network traffic is to be redirected to which service devices based on a service insertion policy that identifies network traffic and services to be performed.
As to claim 2. The combined system of Chanda and Sumit discloses the invention as applied to the parent claim above including, wherein the routing rules comprise policy-based routing rules (Chanda, [0104], uplink-specific policies.).
As to claim 3, The combined system of Chanda and Sumit discloses the invention as applied to the parent claim above including, wherein the data structure indicates a connection type and a service machine (Chanda, [0011], the generated tunnel endpoint locator table has several fields including (i) a logical switch field…. (ii) a MAC address field… and (iii) a locator field that specifies the IP address of the tunnel endpoint..” and [0012], for each port of the distributed component…the locator field [stores] a fixed IP address of 127.0.0.1, for each port of the service routing component …the locator field [stores] the IP address of the gateway implementing the port.).
As to claim 4, The combined system of Chanda and Sumit discloses the invention as applied to the parent claim above including, wherein the data structure comprises a dummy address to use for redirection (Chanda, [0012], for each port of the distributed component…generate a record and store…in the locator field, a fixed IP address of 127.0.0.1, the localhost. 127.0.0.1 is a dummy address and it is not a real tunnel endpoint, it is used as placeholder to force routing behavior.).
As to claim 5, The combined system of Chanda and Sumit discloses the invention as applied to the parent claim above including,, wherein the data structure comprises a status of a connection associated with a service machine (in addition to the rationale provided in claim 3, Chanda [0006], [0010]-[0012], further identifies service machines including, service routers (SR1, SR2), Gateways (GW1, GW2), Service route ports (SRP1, SRP2), Distributed router ports (DRP) and managed hardware forwarding elements (MHFE). For each port of the service routing component…the locator field [stores] the IP address of the gateway implementing the port. The gateway is a service machine, and the locator field indicates the connection status to the at machine.).
As to claim 6, The combined system of Chanda and Sumit discloses the invention as applied to the parent claim above including, wherein the instruction comprises redirection information (Chanda, [0011] and [0012]).
As to claim 11 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 12 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
As to claim 13 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
As to claim 14 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
As to claim 15 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
As to claim 16 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanda and Sumit as applied above in view of Roeland et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0036629 A1), hereinafter “Roe”.
As to claim 7, Chanda and Sumit disclose the invention substantially as in parent claim above. Chanda and Sumit however are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein a set of header fields of the data message is mapped to the unique identifier corresponding to a service that performs non-forwarding processing on data messages.
Roe discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein a set of header fields of the data message is mapped to the unique identifier corresponding to a service that performs non-forwarding processing on data messages (Roe, [0031] the initial classification procedure may include, for example, looking to the packet 5-tuple or any other packet header field i.e. “set of header fields”.[0034], the CL will take the set of tags or a subset of the tags and map it to SFP ID and [0043], using one or more of the tags in the metadata fields, the CL may generate a service ID…where the service ID is the unique identifier. A network service function is a middle box…responsible for a specific treatment of packets and [0033] treatment includes …firewall, bandwidth limiters, parental control, QoS marking etc. which are non-forwarding processing services).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Roe” into those of “Chanda and Sumit” to provide a method performed by a network node includes the network node receiving, from a first portion of a service chain, a packet having a header portion that includes a first service chain path ID and a metadata field. The method further includes the network node retrieving, according to one or more predefined rules, one or more tags included in the metadata field. The method further includes the network node generating a second service chain path ID based on the one or more retrieved tags.
As to claim 8, the combined system of Chanda, Sumit and Roe discloses the invention as in claim above including, further comprising updating the data structure to retrieve instructions for forwarding the data message (Roe, [0045], updating the data structure and retrieves forwarding instructions, [0040], forwarding instructions encoded in data structure and [0034]-[0035], mapping header-derived info to forwarding ID).
As to claim 9, the combined system of Chanda, Sumit and Roe discloses the invention as in claim above including, further comprising storing the data structure at a forwarding element (Roe, [0027], data structure, [0032], [0034,0035], [0045] stored at forwarding element and [0045] used for forwarding).
As to claim 10, the combined system of Chanda, Sumit and Roe discloses the invention as in claim above including, further comprising forwarding the data message to destination without redirection (Roe, [0002], discusses the message forwarding process. Forwarding messages without redirecting or rerouting is well known in the art as evident by RFC 791 as well.).
As to claim 17 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 7 above.
As to claim 18 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 8 above.
As to claim 19 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 9 above.
As to claim 20 is rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights