DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s remarks/arguments 12/16/2025 for
response of the office action mailed on 9/18/2025. Claims 8 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-8 and 11-22 remain pending in the application.
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 Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 10-12), filed on 12/16/2025, with respect to claim 14 have been
fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (Kommula et al. US 9,806,895 Bl) is applied in the current rejection.
Examiner has fully considered remarks/arguments (page 9-10), filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8, 11-13, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1-8, 11-13, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied 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.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kommula et al. (US 10,855,520 Bl, hereinafter “Kommula”) in view of Sampath et al. (US 10,103,902 Bl, hereinafter “Sampath”) and further in view of Mishra et al. (US 11,824,797 Bl, hereinafter “Mishra”) and further in view of Kommula et al. (US 9,806,895 Bl, hereinafter “Kommula_2”).
Regarding claim 14, Kommula discloses:
A method, comprising:
designating, by a network device, a first network device, of a second data center, as a designated forwarder for the second data center (select a primary source device for multicast traffic for the multicast traffic, wherein the multicast traffic is provided to one or more endpoint devices communicating with a network, and where the primary source device and the secondary source device may be redundant sources of the multicast traffic, Kommula: Fig. 5-6, Col.2 11-17);
receiving, by the network device, first traffic from the first network device and second traffic from a second network device of the second data center (select a secondary source device for the multicast traffic, wherein the multicast traffic is provided to one or more endpoint devices communicating with a network, and where the primary source device and the secondary source device may be redundant sources of the multicast traffic, Kommula: Fig. 5-6, Col.2 11-17); and
rejecting, by the network device, the second traffic based on the second network device not being the designated forwarder for the second data center (prevent the multicast traffic from the secondary source from reaching the endpoint devices. first network device may prevent the multicast traffic received from the secondary source (e.g., via the secondary path) from reaching the endpoint devices based on determining that the primary source is operational, Kommula: Fig. 1G, Col.8 23-26).
Kommula does not explicitly disclose:
with a primary virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) network identifier (VNI) or a first source VXLAN tunnel endpoint (VTEP) based on receiving the IGMP report;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampath teaches:
with a primary virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) network identifier (VNI) or a first source VXLAN tunnel endpoint (VTEP) based on receiving the IGMP report (upon receiving the first advertisement, sending, by the network switch to one or more VXLAN tunnel endpoints (VTEPs) connected to the network switch in the VXLAN, a second advertisement including the address of the replication node and the at least one VNI range associated with the replication node. the TOR switch receives an IGMP message join for a multicast group output by a directly-connected VTEP server for a particular multicast group (172), Sampath: Col.2 28-45, Col.10 57-64);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kommula in view of Sampath in order to further modify designating with a primary virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) network identifier (VNI) or a first source VXLAN tunnel endpoint (VTEP) based on receiving the IGMP report from the teachings of Sampath.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the method further comprises, upon registration of at least one of the VTEPs with the router and construction of a distribution tree in the router and construction of a distribution tree in the VXLAN, forwarding, by the network switch, BUM traffic received from the replication node of the router toward the VTEPs (Sampath: Col.2 40-45).
Yet, Kommula in view of Sampath does not explicitly disclose:
broadcasting, by a network device, a Type 6 selective multicast Ethernet tag (SMET) route based on an Internet group management protocol (IGMP) report;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mishra teaches:
broadcasting, by a network device, a Type 6 selective multicast Ethernet tag (SMET) route based on an Internet group management protocol (IGMP) report (the SMET route is an EVPN type 6 SMET route with an EVI-RT that identifies the EVPN (in a first EC). provider edge (PE) receives, from multicast receiver, a local multicast join (e.g., Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) join) to receive multicast traffic from multicast source sitting behind PE, Mishra: Col.3 21-33, Col.9 24-33);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kommula-Sampath in view of Mishra in order to further modify broadcasting a Type 6 selective multicast Ethernet tag (SMET) route based on an Internet group management protocol (IGMP) report from the teachings of Mishra.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated the PEs of EVPN may forward traffic from one or 20 more multicast sources to one or more multicast receivers based on the multicast traffic forwarding information (Mishra: Col.3 18-20).
Yet, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra does not explicitly disclose:
determining, by the network device, whether a rate of the first traffic received satisfies a threshold; and
receiving, by the network device, the second traffic when the threshold is not satisfied.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kommula_2 teaches:
determining, by the network device, whether a rate of the first traffic received satisfies a threshold (network device utilizes a hardware-based scheme to monitor rates of packets received over the incoming interfaces and may detect degradation of a quality of the primary stream by detecting that a rate of packets received over primary multicast forwarding path has dropped below a threshold packet rate, Kommula_2: Fig. 1, Col.6 25-27); and
receiving, by the network device, the second traffic when the threshold is not satisfied (network device may detect degradation of a quality of the primary stream by detecting that a rate of packets received over primary multicast forwarding path has dropped below a threshold packet rate. When network device detects degradation below a quality threshold on the primary multicast forwarding path, a forwarding plane of network device triggers a fast reroute repair in the forwarding plane to automatically select and forward the secondary redundant multicast stream to the next-hop router. network device can nonetheless trigger a switch from to forwarding primary multicast stream to forwarding secondary multicast stream when network device detects that a rate of packets received over primary multicast forwarding path has dropped below a threshold packet rate, Kommula_2: Fig. 1, Col.6 25-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kommula-Sampath-Mishra in view of Kommula_2 in order to further modify determining whether a rate of the first traffic received satisfies a threshold, and receiving the second traffic when the threshold is not satisfied from the teachings of Kommula_2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because multicast live-live techniques allow routers to use multicast techniques to set up multiple redundant multicast streams across a network to improve robustness of content delivery in case of failures in the network. It would have a selection of different higher quality data stream (Kommula_2: Col.1 60-64, Col.12 48-49).
Regarding claim 15, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula further discloses:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining that the second traffic is not from the designated forwarder for the second data center based on an outer source address provided in the second traffic (first network device may program the secondary path with the particular RPF interface, and may determine that the multicast traffic received from the secondary source device fails the RPF check based on the particular RPF interface, Kommula: Col.8 30-38).
Regarding claim 16, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula further discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein the second traffic includes a label identifying the second network device and the method further comprises (include information that causes a secondary path to be provided from the secondary source device and through the network, Kommula: Col.2 25-27:
determining that the second traffic is not from the designated forwarder for the second data center based on the label (first network device may prevent the multicast traffic received from the secondary source device from reaching the endpoint devices based on the multicast traffic received from the secondary source device failing the RPF check, Kommula: Col.8 35-38).
Regarding claim 17, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula further discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein the network device is a service leaf network device or a data center interconnect gateway (network may include multiple network devices (e.g., routers, gateways), Kommula: Fig. 1A, Col.4 20-30).
Regarding claim 18, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula-Mishra-Kommula_2 does not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 14, wherein each of the first traffic and the second traffic is broadcast, unknown-unicast, and multicast traffic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sampath teaches:
wherein each of the first traffic and the second traffic is broadcast, unknown-unicast, and multicast traffic (system comprises a router that includes a replication node for broadcast, unidentified unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic in a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN), Sampath: Col.2 63-66);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kommula-Mishra-Kommula_2 in view of Sampath in order to further modify that each of the first traffic and the second traffic is broadcast, unknown-unicast, and multicast traffic from the teachings of Sampath.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the method further comprises, upon registration of at least one of the VTEPs with the router and construction of a distribution tree in the router and construction of a distribution tree in the VXLAN, forwarding, by the network switch, BUM traffic received from the replication node of the router toward the VTEPs (Sampath: Col.2 40-45).
Regarding claim 19, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula further discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein each of the first network device and the second network device is a data center interconnect gateway (network may include multiple network devices (e.g., routers, gateways), Kommula: Fig. 1A, Col.4 20-30).
Regarding claim 20, Kommula-Sampath-Mishra-Kommula_2 teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Kommula further discloses:
The method of claim 14, wherein designating the first network device as the designated forwarder for the second data center comprises (first network device may select the first source server device as a primary source for the multicast traffic and may select the second source server device as a secondary backup source for the multicast traffic, Kommula: Col.4 42-46).
designating the first network device as the designated forwarder for the second data center based on a forwarding state of the network device (first network device may monitor the operational statuses of the primary source and the secondary source to ensure that the multicast traffic is available to the endpoint devices, Kommula: Col.5 54-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11-13, and 21-22 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 8, while KOMMULA, SAMPATH and KOMMULA 2 provide teachings as well as the other prior art of record do not explicitly teach “wherein one or more of the first redundant multicast flow indication and the second redundant multicast flow indication is a Type 10 selective-provider multicast service interface route identifier," as recited in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 8, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination.
Conclusion
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 SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 February 17, 2026