DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-19, and 21-23 are presented for consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 2, “at lease one” should be corrected as “at least one”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is directed towards a computer readable medium. A claim directed to a "computer program product", absent of an explicit and deliberate definition in the specification or limiting claim language.
The BRI of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signaler se, the claim is non-statutory under 35 US.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Therefore, claim 303 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter (See MPEP section 2106, Seventh Edition, Revision No. dated February 2000, at page 2100-10 and 2100-11).
Other dependent claims, which are not specifically cited above are also rejected because of the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
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, 11, 13-16, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raghu [ US Patent Application NO 2015/0052525 ].
As per claim 1, Raghu discloses the invention as claimed including a method of creating a private service access network [ i.e. virtual cloud-connector nodes allow corporate resources in a public cloud to access protected resources in a corporate data center and corporate resources in a corporate data center to access protected corporate resources in a public cloud ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0006 ], the method comprising:
receiving network parameters [ i.e. the administration interface displays a list of various configurations choices and policy choices which the user can select for the new VPN ] [ Figure 19G; and paragraph 0070 ] corresponding to:
a plurality of software nodes [ i.e. virtual cloud-connector nodes ] [ Figure 10; and paragraphs 0048, and 0049 ];
a first network tunnel between a first client and a first software node of the plurality of software nodes; a second network tunnel between a second client and a second software node of the plurality of software nodes [ i.e. a secure tunnel between end appliances in the first and second cloud-computing facilities ] [ Figure 18A; Abstract; and paragraphs 0063, and 0064 ]; and
a third one or more network tunnels between respective software nodes of the plurality of software nodes [ i.e. inter-cloud VPNs ] [ Figure 17; and paragraphs 0061-0063, and 0074 ];
creating a plurality of code and configuration packages that, when executed, each implement a respective software node of the plurality of software nodes, wherein the plurality of software nodes implement the first network tunnel, the second network tunnel, and the third one or more network tunnels [ i.e. creates multiple virtual data centers that execute within the physical data center, each having one or more internal organization networks that allow intercommunication between virtual machines and vApps executing within the data centers and that may also provide interconnection with remote computational entities via virtual external networks ] [ Figure 15; and paragraphs 0058, and 0059 ],
each of the plurality of code and configuration packages includes execution environment information corresponding to an execution environment in which the respective code and configuration package is to be executed [ i.e. vApp provides an additional layer of abstraction within a virtualized computing environment ] [ Figure 15; and paragraphs 0040, and 0058 ],
deploying each of the plurality of code and configuration packages to the execution environment corresponding to the execution environment information in that code and configuration package [ i.e. deploy vApps ] [ Figure 21A; and paragraphs 0058, 0072, and 0074 ]; and
causing the one or more execution environments to execute the respective code and configuration package deployed thereto such that the plurality of software nodes provide private network connectivity between the first client and the second client [ i.e. the computational entities within a vApp can be easily deployed and started up of individual virtual machines ] [ Figure 20B; and paragraphs 0058, and 0073 ].
As per claim 2, Raghu discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes assigning at lease one private IP addresses to the first software node for use as an endpoint of a network connection [ i.e. a pool of IP addresses is allocated and distributed to end appliances ] [ Abstract; and paragraph 0064 ].
As per claim 3, Raghu discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes creating a first code and configuration package for the first software node [ paragraph 0039 ], the first code and configuration package configured to be executed within a first IP subnet [ i.e. subnetwork ] and act as a gateway for the first IP subnet [ i.e. VPN gateway ] [ paragraphs 0059, and 0060 ].
As per claim 4, Raghu discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages include creating a second code and configuration package for the second software node [ paragraph 0039 ], the second code and configuration package configured to encapsulate and decapsulate packets to and from public IP address to provide a public IP backhaul [ Figure 3; and paragraphs 0034, 0059, and 0060 ].
As per claim 5, Raghu discloses wherein the one or more network parameters include a tunneling protocol for the network tunnel between the first client and the first software node [ i.e. IPsec tunnel ] [ paragraphs 0064, and 0067 ].
As per claim 6, Raghu discloses wherein the network parameters include one or more of a user-based restriction, a device-based restriction, a location-based restriction, and a time-based restriction [ i.e. policies including maximum data transfers per unit time, whether or not messages can be transmitted to a set of destinations ] [ paragraph 0070 ].
11. As per claim 21, Raghu discloses wherein at least one of the first network tunnel and the second network tunnel is encrypted with one or more protocols [ i.e. encryption ] [ paragraph 0059 ].
12. As per claim 22, Raghu discloses wherein the first network tunnel is between the first software node and a first private network, such that the plurality of software nodes provide private network connectivity to a plurality of devices in the first private network via the first network tunnel [ i.e. create inter-cloud VPN] [ paragraphs 0073, and 0074 ].
13. As per claims 11, 13-16, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 1, 3-6.
14. As per claim 23, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 22.
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) 7-9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raghu [ US Patent Application NO 2015/0052525 ], in view of Jansen et al. [ US Patent Application No 2010/0306410 ].
As per claim 7, Raghu does not specifically disclose wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes creating a third code and configuration package for a third software node, the third code and configuration package to implement IP discovery for a first network service and a network connection to the first network service, the third code and configuration package configured to be executed within a first private network. Jansen discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes creating a third code and configuration package for a third software node, the third code and configuration package to implement IP discovery for a first network service and a network connection to the first network service, the third code and configuration package configured to be executed within a first private network [ i.e. discovery of one of the network services ] [ Abstract; and paragraphs 0060, and 0067 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Raghu and Jansen because the teaching of Jansen would enable to create and utilize a searchable tree structure to enable a computing device to discover its own location within a network topology [ Jansen, paragraph 0018 ].
As per claim 8, Jansen discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes creating a fourth code and configuration package for a fourth software node, the fourth code and configuration package configured to be executed with a second private network, the second private network hosting the first network service, the fourth code and configuration package configured to implement a network connection between the third software node and the fourth software node for access to the first network service by clients in the first private network [ i.e. sub-locations or subnet ] [ Figure 4B; and paragraphs 0047, and 0076-0081 ].
As per claim 9, Jansen discloses wherein creating one or more code and configuration packages includes creating one or more intermediate software nodes between the third software node and the fourth software node with respective network connections therebetween, the one more intermediate software nodes configured to execute within a public network [ i.e. intermediate nodes ] [ paragraphs 0057, and 0081-0084 ].
19. As per claims 17-19, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 7-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sundararajan et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0052928 ] discloses a branch network design template for deploying a remote branch in the SDN, wherein the branch design template defines networking settings for a plurality of services to be provisioned at the remote branch
Sha [ US Patent Application No 2017/0109190 ] discloses provide a virtual computing system that provides computing services, and deploying the virtual system image
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-2701684. 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.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
