DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 16, 21, and 23 have been amended; Claim(s) 2 have been canceled; Claim(s) 24 and 25 have been added. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-16, and 19-25 are subject to examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-16, and 19-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIU et al. (US 20240022513 A1) (see 892 04/08/2024), hereby referred to as NIU, in view of VAVILI et al. (US 20140254611 A1), hereby referred to as VAVILI.
Claim 1:
NIU teaches A method comprising: receiving, by a first network device, an ingress data packet comprising a Layer 2 (L2) header that includes a destination media access control (MAC) address and a Layer 3 (L3) header that includes a destination Internet Protocol (IP) address, the destination IP address indicating a destination of the ingress data packet (NIU: FIG. 9 and para 208 (“…a destination IP address may be an IP address corresponding to the second endpoint device.”) wherein each network device can be a first network device which receives an ingress packet with L2 header including DMAC address and L3 header including DIP address); determining, by the first network device, whether the destination MAC address identify the ingress data packet as being destined for the first network device (NIU: FIG. 12B, para 7 (“…a destination address of the service packet is specific local MAC address of a second endpoint device…”), and para 16 (“The first network device determines, based on a port through which the first endpoint device access the first network device, a port identifier…”) wherein DMAC indicates a port ID that indicates the port in which the ingress data packet is received by the first network device, therefore receiving the packet is determining that the packet is destined for a device); generating, by the first network device, an egress data packet from the ingress data packet (NIU: para 276 (“…network device modifies the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device in the service packet to the original MAC address corresponding to the second endpoint device…”) wherein first network device forwards the packet, including modifying it); and sending, by the first network device, the egress data packet out of the first egress interface to the next hop (NIU: para 7 (“The first network device may determine an egress port in a preset routing table based on the location information in the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device, and send the service packet through the egress port…”) wherein the egress packet is sent through the first egress port/interface).
However, NIU does not explicitly disclose whether the destination MAC address includes an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and a match value; and upon determining that the destination MAC address includes the OUI and the match value: identifying, by the first network device using only an index value contained in the destination MAC address, a first egress interface of the first network device that is connected to a next hop leading to the destination indicated by destination IP address, and wherein the identifying comprises accessing an entry in a lookup data structure that maps the index value to the first egress interface.
VAVILI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches whether the destination MAC address includes an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and a match value that collectively identify the ingress data packet (FIG. 3 wherein MAC address includes a OUI and match value, such as the MAC part); and upon determining that the destination MAC address includes the OUI and the match value: identifying, by the first network device using only information an index value contained in the destination MAC address (VAVILI: FIG. 3 330 the index value), a first egress interface of the first network device that is connected to a next hop leading to the destination (VAVILI: FIG. 3 item 340 and para 27 (“…additional information 146 may include egress information such as an egress port ID used to forward network traffic toward the MAC address 110.”) wherein the index value is used to identify the egress port), wherein the identifying comprises accessing an entry in a lookup data structure that maps the index value to the first egress interface (VAVILI: FIG. 3 item 340 (“MAC Table”) the index value to first egress interface; para 27 (“…additional information 146 may include egress information such as an egress port ID used to forward network traffic toward the MAC address 110.”) wherein the index value is used to identify the egress port).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified NIU with VAVILI, the combination hereby referred to as NIU-VAVILI, for the benefit of efficient forwarding of information (VAVILI: para 5).
Claim 3:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the egress data packet includes rewriting one or more of a destination MAC address based on the accessed entry in the lookup data structure (NIU: FIG. 8 item 804 (“Determine the egress port based on the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device”) and item 805 (“Modify the specific MAC address of the second endpoint device in the service packet to an original MAC address corresponding to the second endpoint device”) wherein if the first network device is a second network device of NIU, after/based on determining the routing entry, generating the egress data packet by rewriting the destination MAC address).
Claim 6:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the first network device providing the destination MAC address to a sender of the ingress data packet prior to the sender sending the ingress data packet (NIU: FIG. 21 and para 28 (“…ARP replay packet is the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device…original MAC address corresponding to the first endpoint device. The first network device sends a modified ARP reply packet to the first endpoint device.”) wherein first network device provides destination MAC to the sender).
Claim 7:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the L2 header conforms to Ethernet (NIU: FIG. 14A and FIG. 14B wherein the L2 header is used for ethernet).
Claim 8:
NIU teaches a network device comprising: a plurality of interfaces (NIU: FIG. 7 item 705 and item 706 plurality of interfaces); one or more computer processors (NIU: FIG. 7 item 701 and item 707 processors); and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (NIU: FIG. 7 item 704 (“Memory”)) for controlling the one or more computer processors.
For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 10:
NIU teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for control the one or more computer processors to receive a bitstream that comprises the ingress packet (NIU: FIG. 9 wherein a packet is a bitstream), wherein the egress interface is identified in response to receiving a plurality of bits of the bitstream that constitutes at most a portion of the L2 header corresponding to the destination MAC address (NIU: para 177 (“…the first network device may forward a packet based on the specific local MAC address and the routing table…The specific local MAC address including the location information is used so that the first network device may perform linear table lookup based on a data plane.”) wherein location information of the MAC address/L2 header is used to as a routing entry mapped to an egress port).
Claim 11:
NIU teaches the network device of claim 10, further comprising a routing information base comprising a plurality of entries, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to use at least a portion of the destination MAC address as an index into the routing information base to access an entry that maps the portion of the destination MAC address to the egress interface (NIU: para 7 (“The first network device may determine an egress port in a preset routing table based on the location information in the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device…”) and para 177 (“…the first network device may forward a packet based on the specific local MAC address and the routing table…The specific local MAC address including the location information is used so that the first network device may perform linear table lookup based on a data plane.”) wherein the location information portion of the destination MAC address is an index to the routing table which maps it to an egress).
Claim 12:
NIU teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to identify the egress interface as soon as the destination MAC address is received (NIU: FIG. 8 wherein the egress interface is identified when service packet with destination MAC address is received; wherein “as soon as possible” is a relative term).
Claim 14:
NIU teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein modifying the ingress packet includes one or more one of: modifying the destination MAC address (NIU: para 276 (“…network device modifies the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device in the service packet to the original MAC address corresponding to the second endpoint device.”) wherein the ingress packet becomes an egress packet including modifying the destination MAC).
Claim 16:
NIU teaches a method in a network device comprising: receiving a bitstream comprising an ingress packet, rewriting the ingress packet (NIU: FIG. 9 wherein receiving the headers is receiving a bitstream and para 276 (“…network device modifies the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device in the service packet to the original MAC address corresponding to the second endpoint device.”) wherein the ingress packet becomes an egress packet); and egressing the rewritten ingress packet on the egress interface to the next hop (NIU: para 7 (“The first network device may determine an egress port in a preset routing table based on the location information in the specific local MAC address of the second endpoint device, and send the service packet through the egress port…”) wherein the egress packet is sent through the first egress port/interface).
For other limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 19:
NIU teaches the method of claim 16. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 11 above.
Claim 21:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the index value comprises eight bits of the destination MAC address (VAVILI: FIG. 1 item 132 wherein the index value can comprise 8 bits of the OUI).
Claim 22:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 8, wherein identifying the egress interface comprises computing a hash of the destination MAC address (VAVILI: FIG. 1 item 120 and 150 wherein DMAC is hashed).
Claim 23:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the destination MAC address includes a portion of a destination MAC address of the next hop (VAVILI: FIG. 3 item 312 and para 24 (“The first 3 bytes…are assigned based on the manufacturer of the device…These 3 bytes are…OUI…”) wherein if the next device is the same manufacturer, then OUI is the same in the DMAC of the next hop).
Claim 24:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the OUI comprises 3 bytes of the destination MAC address and wherein the match value comprises 2 bytes of the destination MAC address (VAVILI: FIG. 3 and para 24 (“The first 3 bytes…OUI…These 3 bytes…(NIC)…or a MAC part.”) wherein the OUI is 3 bytes and the match value is at least 2 bytes of the NIC/MAC part).
Claim(s) 5, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIU in view of VAVILI, the combination hereby referred to as NIU-VAVILI, and in further view of REN et al. (US 20240171511 A1) (see 892 08/14/2025), hereby referred to as REN.
Claim 5:
NIU-VIVIALI teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a subsequent ingress data packet (NIU: FIG. 23 receiving ingress packets for different networks) but does not explicitly disclose identifying a second egress interface using an IP address contained in the subsequent ingress data packet; and sending an egress packet generated from the subsequent ingress data packet out of the second egress interface.
REN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches identifying a second egress interface using an IP address contained in the subsequent ingress data packet (REN: para 345 (“The Layer 3 gateway uses the EVI SID in the EVI-MAC route as a destination IP address, and looks up the routing table on a forwarding plane to determine the outbound interface…”) wherein if the first network device is a layer 3 gateway, it identifies an IP address); and sending an egress packet generated from the subsequent ingress data packet out of the second egress interface (REN: para 345 (“The Layer 3 gateway uses the EVI SID in the EVI-MAC route as a destination IP address, and looks up the routing table on a forwarding plane to determine the outbound interface…”) wherein it identifies and egress interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the packet traversing networks method of NIU-VAVILI with the packet traversing networks method of REN for the benefit of traffic optimization and improved bandwidth utilization (REN: para 28).
Claim 15:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to receive a second ingress packet (NIU: FIG. 23 receiving ingress packets for different networks) but does not explicitly disclose to trigger routing of the second ingress packeting using information contained in a L3 header of the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L2 header of the second ingress packet.
REN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to trigger routing of the second ingress packeting using information contained in a L3 header of the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L2 header of the second ingress packet (REN: para 345 (“The Layer 3 gateway uses the EVI SID in the EVI-MAC route as a destination IP address, and looks up the routing table on a forwarding plane to determine the outbound interface…”) wherein if the first network device is a layer 3 gateway, it identifies an IP address based on MAC/L2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the packet traversing networks method of NIU-VAVILI with the packet traversing networks method of REN for the benefit of traffic optimization and improved bandwidth utilization (REN: para 28).
Claim 20:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising: receiving a second ingress packet (NIU: FIG. 23 receiving ingress packets for different networks); but does not explicitly disclose egressing the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L3 header of the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L2 header of the second ingress packet.
REN, in the same field of endeavor, teaches egressing the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L3 header of the second ingress packet based on information contained in a L2 header of the second ingress packet (REN: para 345 (“The Layer 3 gateway uses the EVI SID in the EVI-MAC route as a destination IP address, and looks up the routing table on a forwarding plane to determine the outbound interface…”) wherein if the first network device is a layer 3 gateway, it identifies an IP address/L3 based on MAC/L2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the packet traversing networks method of NIU-VAVILI with the packet traversing networks method of REN for the benefit of traffic optimization and improved bandwidth utilization (REN: para 28).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIU in view of VAVILI, the combination hereby referred to as NIU-VAVILI, and in further view of GOEL et al. (US 20200314030 A1), hereby referred to as GOEL (See IDS 03/06/2023).
Claim 13:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the computer-readable storage medium further comprises instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to identify the egress interface (NIU: FIG. 8 wherein an egress interface is identified in order to transmit the packet) but does not explicitly disclose prior to receiving an entirety of the destination IP address.
GOEL, in the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting prior to receiving an entirety of the destination IP address (GOEL: para 100 (“…determines which bytes within packet byte vector 504 to parse…determines that evaluation of some of the bytes in packet byte vector 504 is not required…determine a number of bytes to skip within packet to skip within packet byte vector 504 to point to the next set of data to be processed (e.g., the DMAC address).”) and para 106 (“…implementing a cut-through switching, enabling transmission of early portions of a network packet to be transmitted to a destination device, even before all remaining portions of the network packet are parsed by parser 420.”) wherein transmission/packet routing action happens before the entire header is parsed/a first portion is received).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified the transmitting based on identifying an egress interface of NIU-VAVILI with the transmitting before receiving the entirety of an IP address of GOEL for the benefit of low latency, high throughput, and higher efficiency (GOEL: para 8).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NIU in view of VAVILI, the combination hereby referred to as NIU-VAVILI, and in further view of MATSUZAWA (US 6490292 B1).
Claim 25:
NIU-VAVILI teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising: but does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the destination MAC address does not include the OUI and the match value, dropping the ingress data packet.
MATSUZAWA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that the destination MAC address does not include the OUI and the match value, dropping the ingress data packet (MATSUZAWA: col 14 line 10-17 (“…if the destination MAC address of the received frame coincides with the MAC address of this router…the MAC controller delivers the frame…In other cases, the MAC controller 331 discards the frame.”) wherein if the DMAC is not destined/does not have the correct OUI and match value, then packet is dropped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified NIU-VAVILI with MATSUZAWA for the benefit of high-speed low-latency packet transfer without needing to learn additional MAC address (MATSUZAWA: col 3 line 18-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BREAU et al. (US 8493950 B1) teaches determining, by the first network device, whether the destination MAC address includes an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) and a match value that collectively identify indicates that the ingress data packet as being destined for the first network device (BREAU: col 2 line 46-57 (“…if an Ethernet frame has the OUI for network 101, the code for base station 111, and the code for port 122 in its destination MAC address, then Ethernet backhaul network 103 transfers the Ethernet frame to port 122 in base station 111 in access network 101…”) wherein OUI contains a match value, and OUI of the destination mac has to be for the OUI of a network to be transferred there, wherein receiving the packet means that it is identified to belong there based on OUI and match value).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416