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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/19/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chanda et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0034051 A1), hereinafter “Chanda”.
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).
As to claim 2. Chanda discloses, wherein the routing rules comprise policy-based routing rules (Chanda, [0104], uplink-specific policies.).
As to claim 3, Chanda discloses, 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, Chanda discloses, 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, Chanda discloses, 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, Chanda discloses, 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 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) 7-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanda as applied above in view of Roeland et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0036629 A1), hereinafter “Roe”.
As to claim 7, Chanda discloses the invention substantially as in parent claim above. Chanda however is 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” 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 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 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 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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 12177067. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because see the table below:
Instant application: 18/952,462 U.S. Patent No.: 12,177,067
1. A method comprising: receiving a data message via a logical router from an external network; performing a lookup into routing rules; determining a matching between the routing rules and conditions and actions of the data message; providing a data structure for a unique identifier based on the matching, the data structure comprises an instruction; processing the data according to the instruction; and forwarding, using a router and through a physical network, the data message according to the instruction.
23. A method for forwarding a data message, the method comprising: performing a lookup to map a set of header fields of the data message to an identifier corresponding to a service that performs non-forwarding processing on data messages;
using a dynamically-updated data structure for the identifier to retrieve instructions for forwarding data messages to the service; and
forwarding the data message according to the retrieved instructions from the data structure for the identifier.
11. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a data message via a logical router from an external network; performing a lookup into routing rules; determining a matching between the routing rules and conditions and actions of the data message;
providing a data structure for a unique identifier based on the matching, the data structure comprises an instruction; processing the data according to the instruction; and
forwarding, using a router and through a physical network, the data message according to the instruction.
35. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program which when executed by at least one processing unit forwards a data message, the program comprising sets of instructions for: performing a lookup to map a set of header fields of the data message to an identifier corresponding to a service that performs non-forwarding processing on data messages;
using a dynamically-updated data structure for the identifier to retrieve instructions for forwarding data messages to the service; and
forwarding the data message according to the retrieved instructions from the data structure for the identifier.
From the above table it can be seen, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the inventions claim to solve the same problem by providing a method for configuring a gateway machine in a datacenter. The method receives a definition of a logical network for implementation in the datacenter. The logical network includes at least one logical switch to which logical network endpoints attach and a logical router for handling data traffic between the logical network endpoints in the datacenter and an external network. The method receives configuration data attaching a third-party service to at least one interface of the logical router via an additional logical switch designated for service attachments. The third-party service is for performing non-forwarding processing on the data traffic between the logical network endpoints and the external network. The method configures the gateway machine in the datacenter to implement the logical router and redirect at least a subset of the data traffic between the logical network endpoints and the external network to the attached third-party service.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 carry the deficiencies from the base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892.
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, Brian J Gillis can be reached on 571 272-7952. 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