DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Re claim 1, this claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea under the mental process wherein the limitations “dynamically determining…”; “dynamically generating…”; and “automatically selecting…” are functions that can be reasonably done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation evaluation judgement and opinion under Prong I step 2A.
Under Prong II step 2A, the other limitations in the claims including “at two or more gateway nodes…” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, these additional elements above either individually or in combination are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 9 and 15, these claims are system and non-transitory computer readable medium claims having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, these claims are analyzed and rejected in similar reason in claim 1 above. In addition, the additional elements including “storage…”; “a processor…” and “computer=readable instruction…” also mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong II. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 2, 7, 10, and 16, the limitations in these claims are analyzed as additional elements under Prong II as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. Therefore, these additional elements do not recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Re claims 3-6, 11-14, and 17-20, the limitations in these claims are similarly analyzed as additional mental process under Prong I and there is no additional element that would integrate into the practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iyer et al. (U.S. 2019/0386918 A1).
Re claim 1, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 a method (e.g. abstract and Figures 1-2) comprising: dynamically determining, at two or more gateway nodes that each communicate with a plurality of branch nodes and a plurality of resources, a corresponding path between each of the plurality of branch nodes and each of the plurality of resources, wherein the corresponding path includes one or more virtual routers (e.g. Figures 1-2 with SP1 and SP2 and paragraphs [0018 – 0020]); dynamically generating, at the two or more gateway nodes, a corresponding router affinity that is assigned per-prefix of each of the plurality of resources (e.g. paragraphs [0024 – 0026, 0029, and 0036]); and automatically selecting, based on the corresponding router affinity, a corresponding per-prefix path between each of the plurality of branch nodes and each of the plurality of resources (e.g. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0053-0056]).
Re claim 2, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 the plurality of resources are one of a virtual network (e.g. paragraphs [0052 and 0092]), an anycast virtual network, and/or firewall through which traffic flows to internet.
Re claim 3, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 the corresponding per-prefix path has a length that increases as a number of virtual routers in the corresponding path increases (e.g. paragraphs [0024-0026]).
Re claim 4, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 generating a per-prefix router affinity score to localize internet access on a given gateway node most closely associated with a given one of the plurality of branch nodes (e.g. abstract, paragraphs [0022, 0031, and 0036]).
Re claim 5, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 the per-prefix router affinity score includes multiple affinity scores that span across a plurality of gateway nodes in order of preference to a given gateway (e.g. paragraphs [0116-0118]).
Re claim 6, Iyer et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 the corresponding router affinity has one or more redundant connections, where one or more failures occur through a full-mesh connectivity from the plurality of branch nodes to the two or more gateway nodes (e.g. Figures 1-2 as implied as two routing paths).
Re claim 9, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 10, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 11, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 12, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 13, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 14, it is system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 15, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 19, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 20, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
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 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. 2019/0386918 A1).
Re claim 7, Iyer et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-10 the two or more gateway nodes comprise more than four gateway nodes. However, the examiner takes an official notice that typical network in the technology has many gateway nodes including at least four gateway nodes due to its complexity and scalability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add at least 4 gateway nodes in the network into Iyer et al.’s invention because it would enable to increase the scalability and redundancy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (U.S. 2019/0386918 A1) in view of Cidon et al. (U.S. 2019/0104053 A1).
Re claim 8, Iyer et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-10 establishing a dangling virtual routing service coupled to a single one of a plurality of virtual routing services, so that all paths to and from the plurality of resources coupled to the dangling virtual routing service through the single one of the plurality of virtual routing services. However, Cidon et al. disclose establishing a dangling virtual routing service coupled to a single one of a plurality of virtual routing services, so that all paths to and from the plurality of resources coupled to the dangling virtual routing service through the single one of the plurality of virtual routing services (e.g. abstract and paragraphs [0088 and 0236]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add establishing a dangling virtual routing service coupled to a single one of a plurality of virtual routing services, so that all paths to and from the plurality of resources coupled to the dangling virtual routing service through the single one of the plurality of virtual routing services as seen in Cidon et al.’s invention into Iyer et al.’s invention because it would enable to reduce the complexity of routing.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,031 in view of Iyer et al. (U.S. 2019/0386918 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every individual claims 1-20 of Patent No. 12,363,031 can anticipate every limitation of pending claims 1-20 respectively, except the Patent ‘031 does not mention the limitation “automatically selecting…of resources” as seen in claim 1 of pending application. However, this limitation is obviously can be seen as result of generating the routing paths for selection which can be reasonably seen in Iyer et al. Iyer et al. disclose automatically selecting, based on the corresponding router affinity, a corresponding per-prefix path between each of the plurality of branch nodes and each of the plurality of resources (e.g. abstract, Figure 2 with the path selection engine 220 and paragraph [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add automatically selecting, based on the corresponding router affinity, a corresponding per-prefix path between each of the plurality of branch nodes and each of the plurality of resources as seen in Iyer et al.’s invention into this pending application because it would enable to route to most proper path of communication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-12683896-B2
US-20250080464-A1
US-20230115001-A1
US-20230080537-A1
US-20220263789-A1
US-20210234898-A1
US-20190386918-A1
US-20190104053-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
