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 .
Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, 16 have been cancelled.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13 , 15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias( US 20080101385) in view of Duda (US20150058470) further in view of Wang et al. (US9485141).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Elias teaches A system comprising: a processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0022] “The instructions 324 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 304, the static memory 306, and/or within the processor 302 during execution thereof by the computer system 300”), perform a method comprising:
receiving, from a first provider edge device on a virtual private network (Fig 1 “104 PE Router”, [0011] “The MPLS network 105 provides reachability between the PE routers 104 for exchanging packet traffic between the CE routers 102 belonging to the same Virtual Private Network (VPN)”),
a first route advertisement (Fig. 2 “206”, [0014] “advertise the routing update in step 206 to the RR 110 (see Step C in FIG. 1). The routing update includes among other things an Export Routing Target (RT) and routing attributes that could effect changes to a Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) table of one or more PE routers in the communication system 100 of FIG. 1. Upon receiving the routing update in step 206”),
accessing a datastore to find a record that is associated with the first (([0014] “Upon receiving the routing update in step 206, the RR 110 filters the routing update in step 208 by matching the Export RT to one or more Import RTs stored in the RR. The RR 110 will not re-advertise the routing update to PE routers 104 associated with Import RTs which do not match the Export RT. Thus the RR 110 in step 210 re-advertises the routing update only to PE routers 104 associated with an Import RT that matches the Export RT (see Step D in FIG. 1)”);
in response to finding a record that is associated with the first ([0014] “Upon receiving the routing update in step 206, the RR 110 filters the routing update in step 208 by matching the Export RT to one or more Import RTs stored in the RR. The RR 110 will not re-advertise the routing update to PE routers 104 associated with Import RTs which do not match the Export RT. Thus the RR 110 in step 210 re-advertises the routing update only to PE routers 104 associated with an Import RT that matches the Export RT (see Step D in FIG. 1)”);
Elias does not teach the first route advertisement including a first virtual network identifier that is associated with the virtual private network; virtual network identifier, virtual network identifier, and in response to not finding a record that is associated with the first virtual network identifier: generating a new record in the datastore; associating the new record with the virtual network identifier contained in the first route advertisement; and storing an identifier of the first provider edge device in the new record, in response to the first provider edge device not being identified in the found record: identifying a second route advertisement previously sent by one of the second provider edge devices, that includes the virtual network identifier; and transmitting the second route advertisement to the first provider edge device;
Duda teaches virtual network identifier ([0066] “in the generated VXLAN frame, the source MAC address (312 in FIG. 3) is the source VTEP MAC address, the destination MAC address (314 in FIG. 3) is the MAC address of the next hop, the source VTEP IP address (316 in FIG. 3) is the IP address of the source VTEP, the destination VTEP IP address (318 in FIG. 3) is the VTEP IP address obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table in step 718, and the VNI (320 in FIG. 3) is obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table (in step 718)”),
virtual network identifier ([0066] “in the generated VXLAN frame, the source MAC address (312 in FIG. 3) is the source VTEP MAC address, the destination MAC address (314 in FIG. 3) is the MAC address of the next hop, the source VTEP IP address (316 in FIG. 3) is the IP address of the source VTEP, the destination VTEP IP address (318 in FIG. 3) is the VTEP IP address obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table in step 718, and the VNI (320 in FIG. 3) is obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table (in step 718)”),
and in response to not finding a record that is associated with the first virtual network identifier: generating a new record in the datastore ([0045] “In step 400, values for the fields/components for a new locally learned host entry are obtained (see 204, FIG. 2). The values for the aforementioned fields may be obtained, in part, from a MAC frame issued by the host (i.e., the host to which the new locally learned host entry corresponds). In one embodiment of the invention, the VTEP includes functionality to associate the VNI with the host, where this information is used to populate the new locally learned host entry”);
associating the new record with the virtual network identifier contained in the first route advertisement; and storing an identifier of the first provider edge device in the new record ([0045] “In step 400, values for the fields/components for a new locally learned host entry are obtained (see 204, FIG. 2). The values for the aforementioned fields may be obtained, in part, from a MAC frame issued by the host (i.e., the host to which the new locally learned host entry corresponds). In one embodiment of the invention, the VTEP includes functionality to associate the VNI with the host, where this information is used to populate the new locally learned host entry”, [0060] “For example, consider the scenario in which Host 1 is a virtual machine that is initially “learned” by VTEP 1. Accordingly, VTEP 1 includes a locally learned entry for Host 1, a HSPT entry for Host 1, and an active forwarding table entry for Host 1. Assume at a later point in time Host 1 is migrated to a new server and, for purposes of this example is denoted as Host 1′. Host 1′ is subsequently “learned” by VTEP 2. As a result, VTEP 2 includes a locally learned entry for Host 1”)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias to incorporate the teachings of Duda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively update information.
Duda does not explicitly teach the first route advertisement including a first virtual network identifier that is associated with the virtual private network, in response to the first provider edge device not being identified in the found record: identifying a second route advertisement previously sent by one of the second provider edge devices, that includes the virtual network identifier; and transmitting the second route advertisement to the first provider edge device.
Wang teaches the first route advertisement including a first virtual network identifier that is associated with the virtual private network (col 11 lines 20 -30 “Route target-VPN table 42 of routing protocol module 36 stores associations between route targets and VPN service types configured in network device 30 as associated with a VRF export/import policy that specifies the route targets. In some instances, route target-VPN table 42 represents an associative data structure, stored to a computer-readable media, that is separate from configuration data 46. In some instances, RP module 36 identifies associations between route targets and VPN service types by querying and ana lyzing configuration data 46, and in Such instances route target-VPN table 42 may be considered part of configuration data 46”),
in response to the first provider edge device not being identified in the found record: identifying a second route advertisement previously sent by one of the second provider edge devices, that includes the virtual network identifier (col 9 lines 35-52 “Route reflector 17 receives route target reachability infor mation message 26 and determines the one or more VPN service types and the route target specified therein. In some instances, route reflector 17 may extract the one or more VPN service types from the path attribute and extracts the route target membership information from the Route Target membership NLRI in instances where route target reach ability information message 26 represents a route advertise ment that includes a Route Target membership NLRI. Responsive to receiving route target reachability informa tion message 26, route reflector 17 sends, in one or more route advertisements 28, VPN routes for the one or more VPN service types that match the route target, as specified in route target reachability information message 26. In some instances, route reflector 17 may store associations between a route target and one or more VPN service types for each of PE routers 8”, (Examiner’s Note: the information the route reflector gets is from other PE routers 8, so the other PE routers 8 ==second provider edge devices”); and transmitting the second route advertisement to the first provider edge device (col 8 lines 1-25 “In response to the new configuration, and in accordance with techniques of this disclosure, PE router 8B queries the stored associations and determines that an association for RT=1 already exists (in particular, an association between RT=1 and the VPN service type for VPN A 13). In this example, to receive VPN routes for RT=1 for the VPN service type for VPN B 15, PE router 8B issues route refresh message 20 specifying the VPN service type for VPN B 15. RR 17 receives route refresh message 20 and responds to PE router 8B with route advertisements 22 that are associated with the VPN service type for VPN B 15 and RT=1. PE router 8B imports the routes carried in route advertisements 22 and uses the routes to forward traffic to/from VPN B site 14B (Examiner’s Note: new configuration could be BRI in response to the first provider edge device not being identified in the found record because it is a new record and state it is being installed into the table, further more once it has been installed in the table it queries the existing records for any related ones, PE8B is the first provider edge device ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias, Duda to incorporate the teachings of Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to minimize route overloading.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17 Elias teaches wherein the method further comprises: refraining from transmitting the first route advertisement to a third provider edge device that is not included in the record([0014] “Upon receiving the routing update in step 206, the RR 110 filters the routing update in step 208 by matching the Export RT to one or more Import RTs stored in the RR. The RR 110 will not re-advertise the routing update to PE routers 104 associated with Import RTs which do not match the Export RT. Thus the RR 110 in step 210 re-advertises the routing update only to PE routers 104 associated with an Import RT that matches the Export RT (see Step D in FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Elias does not teach wherein the first virtual network identifier comprises a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) network identifier.
Duda teaches wherein the first virtual network identifier comprises a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) network identifier([0066] “in the generated VXLAN frame, the source MAC address (312 in FIG. 3) is the source VTEP MAC address, the destination MAC address (314 in FIG. 3) is the MAC address of the next hop, the source VTEP IP address (316 in FIG. 3) is the IP address of the source VTEP, the destination VTEP IP address (318 in FIG. 3) is the VTEP IP address obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table in step 718, and the VNI (320 in FIG. 3) is obtained from the entry in the active forwarding table (in step 718)”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias to incorporate the teachings of Duda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively share information to devices.
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19, Elias, does not teach wherein the method further comprises: adding at least one route eligibility entry to a route eligibility table, the at least one route eligibility entry corresponding to the first virtual network identifier.
Duda teaches wherein the method further comprises: adding at least one route eligibility entry to a route eligibility table, the at least one route eligibility entry corresponding to the first virtual network identifier ([0045] “In step 400, values for the fields/components for a new locally learned host entry are obtained (see 204, FIG. 2). The values for the aforementioned fields may be obtained, in part, from a MAC frame issued by the host (i.e., the host to which the new locally learned host entry corresponds). In one embodiment of the invention, the VTEP includes functionality to associate the VNI with the host, where this information is used to populate the new locally learned host entry”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias to incorporate the teachings of Duda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively share information to devices.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Elias and Duda does not teach wherein the method further comprises: adding an identifier at least one of the second provider edge device to the at least one route eligibility entry.
Duda teaches wherein the method further comprises: adding an identifier of the second provider edge device to the at least one route eligibility entry ([0045] “In step 400, values for the fields/components for a new locally learned host entry are obtained (see 204, FIG. 2). The values for the aforementioned fields may be obtained, in part, from a MAC frame issued by the host (i.e., the host to which the new locally learned host entry corresponds). In one embodiment of the invention, the VTEP includes functionality to associate the VNI with the host, where this information is used to populate the new locally learned host entry”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias to incorporate the teachings of Duda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively share information to devices.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elias in view of Duda, further in view of Drake further in view of Huang (WO2018090872).
Regarding claims 7, 14 Elias, Duda, Drake does not teach wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the first route advertisement contains an additional virtual network identifier, repeating the method using the additional virtual network identifier from the first route advertisement.
Huang teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the first route advertisement contains an additional virtual network identifier, extracting the additional virtual network identifier from the first route advertisement (page 7 [0002] “the target packet may carry a second network identifier… may be used to identify a virtual local area network”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Elias, Duda, Drake to incorporate the teachings of Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow an increase in ease of network deployment (page 3 [0002] of Huang).
Response to ArgumentsNo arguments were included in the record.
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 KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights