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 .
This is a first office action in response to the instant application for letters patent filed on 28 April 2025. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merit. The submission is 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 § 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farag 20170289101 and Verwoerd 20150134853.
As per claim 21, Farag teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from a client of a computing environment via one or more programmatic interfaces, a first request to perform one or more actions pertaining to overlaps (i.e. conflicting) of network addresses among networks (see par 0014, “methods for resolving conflicting (i.e. overlaps) network addresses by utilizing a DNS server to configure an edge computing device to handle conflicting networking addresses through name resolution. Specifically, in some embodiments, the DNS server may obtain a set of conflicting (i.e. overlapping) network addresses. The DNS server may receive a request to resolve a hostname of a recipient computing device from a client computing device, which may include determining a network address related to the hostname”); detecting, at the computing environment, based at least in part on the first request, that a first network address assigned to a first resource in a first network matches a second network address assigned to a second resource in a second network (see par 0037, “in FIG. 2, the DNS server 102 may determine that the resolved network address is assigned to both the client computing device 108 in the local network 110 (e.g., as described in FIG. 1) and with the recipient computing device 114 in the external network 112. In light of this conflict, the DNS server 102 may determine a substitute network address in operation 208. As described, the substitute network address may be a network address that does not conflict with another network address. In some embodiments in which the resolved network address is assigned to a computing device within a local network of the client computing device 106 and assigned to a computing device within an external network, the DNS server 102 may determine a substitute network address that may be suitable for use within a local network of the client computing device 106 (e.g., the network 110) or, alternatively, suitable for use within the external network.”); and performing, at the computing environment, at least one action of the one or more actions in response to said detecting (see par 0037, “the DNS server 102 may determine a substitute network address that may be suitable for use within a local network of the client computing device 106 (e.g., the network 110) or, alternatively, suitable for use within the external network”).
However, Farag does not discuss cloud environment. Verwoerd teaches a computing cloud environment (see par 0032 and fig 1A, element 118, cloud device). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date and time of the invention to incorporate Cloud in Farag system to enhance security and backup in the system while improving collaboration.
As per claim 22, Farag teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, wherein said performing the at least one action comprises: providing, via the one or more programmatic interfaces, an indication of the first address to the client (see par 0037, “another network address, for example, in a local network of the client computing device 106 “).
As per claim 23, Farag-Verwoerd teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, further comprising: receiving, at the cloud computing environment from the client via the one or more programmatic interfaces, an address translation mapping to be used for traffic between the first network and the second network; and utilizing, at the cloud computing environment, the address translation mapping to transmit a packet between the first network and the second network (see Farag par 0038, “The DNS server 102 may provide translation information 210 to the edge computing device 104. The translation information 210 may include information that may enable the edge computing device 104 to translate the substitute network address determined in operation 208 into the resolved network address determined in operation 204. In some embodiments, the translation information 210 may also include an indication of the hostname 202 received from the client computing device 106. As such, the translation information 210 may indicate that a substitute network address is associated with a resolved network address and …”).
As per claim 24, Farag-Verwoerd teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, further comprising: receiving, from the client of the cloud computing environment via the one or more programmatic interfaces, a second request to programmatically attach at least the first network to a gateway or hub of the cloud computing environment, wherein said detecting is performed in response to the second request (see Farag par 0018, “the edge computing device may be a router, a generic firewall device, an application-specific firewall device, a network-address-translation (NAT) device, or one of various other computing devices that serve as an intermediary or communication gateway between computing devices in separate networks”).
As per claim 25, Farag teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, wherein said performing the at least one action comprises: generating an address translation mapping for traffic between the first network and the second network; and causing the address translation mapping to be utilized for transmission of packets between the first network and the second network (see Farag par 0030, “the DNS server 102 may utilize the translation information to configure the translation table of the edge computing device 104 (e.g., via an application interface protocol or “API”) to include an entry into the translation table indicating that the substitute network address of a recipient computing device should be translated into the actual resolved network address of that recipient computing device. After configuring the edge computing device 104 with the translation information, the DNS server 102 may provide the substitute network address to the requesting client computing device. The requesting client computing device may then provide the substitute network address and …”; see par 0038).
As per claim 26, Farag-Verwoerd teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, wherein at least one resource of the first and second resources is located at a premise external to the cloud computing environment (see parr 0037, “the DNS server 102 may determine that the resolved network address conflicts with another network address, for example, in a local network of the client computing device 106 or in an external network”).
As per claim 27, Farag-Verwoerd teaches the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 21, wherein at least one network of the first and second virtual networks comprises a virtual network configured at the cloud computing environment (see Verwoerd paragraph 0044 and claim 1 motivation).
As per claims 28-40, they are system and non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium of the method claims 21-27. They contain the same limitations. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZ B JEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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, Glenton B. Burgess can be reached at 5712723949. 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.
/FRANTZ B JEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights