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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
More specifically, claims, 1, 9, and 16 contain the limitation “the graphical user interface including a display panel configured to display progress of a build process for a network topology graph”. Does this refer to a progress bar being displayed as a network is being generated? Does this refer to an Elliptical Graph that shows the elements that have been generated (per applicant’s specification: 0060-0061)? Does this refer to some other form of progress? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as if claiming the Elliptical Graph limitation. However, appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula et al. (Patent No. US 11,645,548 B1), hereinafter Durvasula, in view of SUTTLE et al. (Pre-Grant Publication US 2023/0342179 A1), hereinafter Suttle.
2. With respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, Durvasula taught a distributed cloud computing system (5:33-55) comprising: a controller configured to deploy and manage network constructs, the network constructs including any of transit gateways, spoke gateways, subnets, or private networks (5:56-67, where this, at least, teaches the private network. See also: 29:45-56, the VPN); and logic, stored on non-transitory, computer-medium, that, upon execution by one or more processors, causes performance of operations including: causing rendering of a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface including a display panel configured to display a network graph (11:24-39), receiving first user input through the graphical user interface indicating selection of a first cloud service provider, a first access account, and a first cloud region (13:31-45, where the cloud providers can be seen, the customer/client is the account, and wherein the selected region is the geographic location of 37:30-35), receiving second user input through the graphical user interface indicating selection of one or more of the network constructs to be deployed in the first cloud region (14:35-54), instructing the controller to deploy the one or more of the network constructs in the first cloud region according to the first user input and the second user input (14:55-67, the deployment).
However, Durvasula did not explicitly state that the network graph included a progress of a build process for a network topology. On the other hand, Suttle did teach that the network graph included a progress of a build process for a network topology (0074, where the ECC is an elliptical graph). Both of the systems of Durvasula and Suttle are directed towards managing/monitoring multi-cloud configurations and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Durvasula, to teach utilizing an elliptical graph, as taught by Suttle, in order to better visualize network configurations.
3. As for claims 2 and 10, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors, causes performance of further operations including: in response to receipt of the first user input, updating the rendering of the graphical user interface to display a first segment of an elliptical topology graph, wherein the first segment represents the first cloud region associated with the first access account of cloud resources of the first cloud service provider (11:24-39, where the elliptical graph can be seen by the ECC in Suttle: 0074).
4. As for claims 3 and 11, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors, causes performance of further operations including: in response to receipt of the second user input, updating the rendering of the graphical user interface to display the one or more of the network constructs at least partially within the first segment (14:35-54, the building blocks).
5. As for claims 4 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). In addition, Suttle taught wherein the private networks include either of virtual private clouds or virtual networks (0035, where this, at least, teaches the VPC limitation).
6. As for claims 5, 13, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 13, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the controller, in response to the instructions from the logic, deploys the one or more of the network constructs in the first cloud region (14:55-67).
7. As for claims 7, 15, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 13, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the logic, upon execution by the one or more processors, causes performance of further operations including: receiving third user input through the graphical user interface indicating selection of a second cloud service provider, a second access account, and a second cloud region, receiving fourth user input through the graphical user interface indicating selection of a second set of network constructs to be deployed in the second cloud region, and instructing the controller to deploy the second set of network constructs in the second cloud region according to the third user input and the fourth user input (13:31-45, where the cloud providers can be seen, the customer/client is the account, and wherein the selected region is the geographic location of 37:30-35. Accordingly, the process can be repeated for the Nth cloud deployment).
8. As for claim 17, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 16. In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the logic, when execution by the one or more processors, causes further operations including: in response to receipt of the first user input, updating the rendering of the graphical user interface to display a first segment of an elliptical topology graph, wherein the first segment represents the first cloud region associated with the first access account of cloud resources of the first cloud service provider (11:24-39, where the elliptical graph can be seen by the ECC in Suttle: 0074); and in response to receipt of the second user input, updating the rendering of the graphical user interface to display the one or more of the network constructs at least partially within the first segment (14:35-54, the building blocks).
9. As for claim 18, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 16. In addition, Durvasula taught wherein the private networks include either of virtual private clouds or virtual networks (0035, where this, at least, teaches the VPC limitation), and wherein the one or more of the network constructs include a first transit gateway, a first subnet, and a first private network within the first subnet, the first private network coupled to the first transit gateway (13:31-45, where the cloud providers can be seen, the customer/client is the account, and wherein the selected region is the geographic location of 37:30-35. Accordingly, the process can be repeated for the Nth cloud deployment).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durvasula, in view of Suttle, and in further view of Leviseur (Patent No. US 11,265,292 B1), hereinafter Leviseur.
10. As for claims 6 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 9 (respectively). However, Durvasula did not explicitly state wherein the one or more of the network constructs include a first transit gateway, a first subnet, and a first private network within the first subnet, the first private network coupled to the first transit gateway. On the other hand, Leviseur did teach wherein the one or more of the network constructs include a first transit gateway, a first subnet, and a first private network within the first subnet, the first private network coupled to the first transit gateway (7:54 to 8:10 & 16:26-38). Both of the systems of Durvasula and Leviseur are directed towards deployment of network infrastructure and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Durvasula, to utilize specific deployment components, as taught by Leviseur, in order to properly deploy a network that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
11. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Durvasula did not explicitly state wherein the graphical user interface includes each construct illustrated as a node or a vertex, and each communication path between constructs illustrated as a link. On the other hand, Leviseur did teach wherein the graphical user interface includes each construct illustrated as a node or a vertex, and each communication path between constructs illustrated as a link (16:39-51). Both of the systems of Durvasula and Leviseur are directed towards deployment of network infrastructure and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Durvasula, to utilize specific deployment components, as taught by Leviseur, in order to properly deploy a network that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Adeli-Nadjafi (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0368213 A1), 0055.
(b) Savov et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0036599 A1), 0053, 0055, 0070, 0082, & 0087.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights