Patent Application 17992809 - AUTOMATED SYNCHRONIZATION OF NETWORK ADDRESSES - Rejection

Patent Application 17992809 - AUTOMATED SYNCHRONIZATION OF NETWORK ADDRESSES

Title: AUTOMATED SYNCHRONIZATION OF NETWORK ADDRESSES ACROSS PUBLIC CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS

Application Information

• Invention Title: AUTOMATED SYNCHRONIZATION OF NETWORK ADDRESSES ACROSS PUBLIC CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS
• Application Number: 17992809
• Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-11-22T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-11-22T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 718
• National Sub-Class: 104000
• Examiner Employee Number: 89896
• Art Unit: 2196
• Tech Center: 2100

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0258788🔗
• US 0213151🔗
• US 0098013🔗
• US 0136936🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 15, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.

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.

Claims 1-2, 10-11, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivatsan et al (US 2020/0213151 ) (hereinafter Srivatsan) in view of Quintuna et al (US 2012/0136936) (hereinafter Quintuna).

As per claim 1, Srivatsan teaches: 

A computer-implemented method for automated network address synchronization in a multi-cloud environment, the method comprising:
instantiating a first trusted public cloud environment (TPCE) based on a first specification in a first PCE, the first TPCE offering a first set of services (Srivatsan, [0106]—an instantiating step and a spec exist in order to have client 102 running; under BRI, a first set of services can be services of client) ;
discovering a first set of external network addresses (ENAs) associated with the first set of services in the first TPCE (Srivatsan, [0106]—a discovering step exists in order to have actual network address of the client 102); 
recording the first set of ENAs in a first storage in the first TPCE (Srivatsan, [0106]—under BRI, recording can be storing [of actual network address]); and

Srivatsan does not expressly teach: 

synchronizing the first set of ENAs with a second set of ENAs associated with a second set of services in a second TPCE in a second PCE, causing the first set of services in the first TPCE and the second set of services in the second TPCE to have access to both ENAs associated with the first set of services in the first TPCE and ENAs associated with the second set of services in the second TPCE.

However, Quintuna discloses: 
synchronizing the first set of ENAs with a second set of ENAs associated with a second set of services in a second TPCE in a second PCE, causing the first set of services in the first TPCE and the second set of services in the second TPCE to have access to both ENAs associated with the first set of services in the first TPCE and ENAs associated with the second set of services in the second TPCE (Quintuna, [0070]—under BRI, synchronizing addresses can be merging indexes; query execution for data can be seen as set of services).

Both Quintuna and Srivatsan pertain to the art of network technology.  

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Quintuna’s method to synchronize addresses  because it is well-known in the art that synchronizing addresses offers several key benefits, including efficient data sharing, faster inter-process communication, and reduced resource overhead.  

As per claim 2, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches: 

The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 2), wherein the second TPCE is instantiated based on a second specification in the second PCE (Quintuna, [0070]—an instantiating step and spec exists in order to have services running allowing users to data), the second TPCE offer the second set of services (Quintuna, [0070]—a set of services exists in order for users to identify data), the second set of ENAs associated with the second set of services are discovered (Quintuna, [0070]—a discovering step exists in order to have indexes).

Although Srivatsan/Quintuna does not expressly teach:  recorded in a second storage in the second TPCE, Srivatsan discloses: addresses recorded in a second storage in the second TPCE (Srivatsan, [0106]—saving addresses from the discover request onto the database 525b).  It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Srivatsan’s method to record 2nd ENAs  because …  

As per claim 10, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches: 

The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein recording the first set of ENAs includes for each ENA in the first set of ENAs, recording one or more of the following datasets associated with the ENA: 
a network address value of the ENA (Srivatsan, [0106]-- actual network address of the client);
 a name of the service associated with the ENA ; 
a functional domain in which the service associated with the ENA executes; 
a time stamp when the ENA is associated with the service; an allocation identifier associated with an allocation of the ENA; or 
an association identifier associated with an association of the ENA with the service.

As per claim 11, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches: 

The computer-implemented method of claim 10 (see rejection on claim 10), wherein recording the first set of ENAs includes, for each ENA in the first set of ENAs,
recording the one or more datasets associated with the ENA into a pre-specified data format (Srivatsan, [0106]— a pre-specified data format exists in order to record network addresses); and 
packaging the first of ENAs into a pre-specified data structure (Srivatsan, [0106]— a packaging step exists in order to record network addresses).

As per claim 13, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches: 

The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein each ENA in the first set of ENAs includes an external IP address (EIP) (Srivatsan, [0106]—under BRI, external can be anything outside for devices other than client 102).

As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 1. 

As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 1. 



Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivatsan/Quintuna as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bykampadi et al (US 2021/0258788) (hereinafter Bykampadi).

As per claim 12, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 11 (see rejection on claim 11).

Srivatsan/Quintuna does not expressly teach: 

wherein the pre-specified data structure is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data structure.

However, Bykampadi discloses: 
wherein the pre-specified data structure is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data structure.

Both Bykampadi and Srivatsan/Quintuna pertain to the art of network technology.  

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bykampadi’s method to use JSON data structures because it is well-known in the art that JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) offers several benefits, including its simplicity, readability, and lightweight nature. 

Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivatsan/Quintuna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorantes et al (US 2024/0098013) (hereinafter Dorantes ).

As per claim 14, Srivatsan/Quintuna teaches:

The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).

Srivatsan/Quintuna does not expressly teach: 
 wherein synchronizing the first set of ENAs with the second set of ENAs is performed via a network address translation (NAT) gateway and a serverless computing service implemented in the first TPCE.

However, Dorantes discloses: 
wherein synchronizing the first set of ENAs with the second set of ENAs is performed via a network address translation (NAT) gateway (Dorantes, [0081]) and a serverless computing service implemented in the first TPCE (Dorantes, [0081]).

Both Dorantes and Srivatsan/Quintuna pertain to the art of network technology.  

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dorantes’ method to use a NAT gateway and performing a serverless computing service because it is well-known in the art that a NAT (Network Address Translation) gateway offers several benefits, including improved security, scalability, and simplified management and serverless computing offers several advantages, including cost efficiency, scalability, and reduced operational overhead.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, April Blair can be reached on (571) 270-1014. 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.





/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196