DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/16/2025 in which claims 1-7 and 21-34 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17024360, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
“a layer 3 packet encapsulated within a layer 2 frame;” does not have support in the parent applications; accordingly claims 1-7 and 21-34 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: “a layer 3 packet encapsulated within a layer 2 frame.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 21-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “A layer 3 packet encapsulated within a layer 2 frame;” does not have support in the parent applications; accordingly claims 1-7 and 21-34 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 21-23, 26-30, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Moreels et al. (US20050138206A1).
As to claims 1, 21, and 28, Moreels teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a management device, based on a triggering event at an access point, ([0053] As mentioned above, the extractor EXTR is coupled to one of the interfaces of the network unit e.g. INT1 to receive an Ethernet packet. Such an Ethernet packet is shown in FIG. 1 whereby the payload of the Ethernet packet is referred to as P-Eth. As a matter of example, this Ethernet packet has to be forwarded in the upstream direction i.e. from the workstation W-A towards the core of the network.)
location information inside a layer 3 packet encapsulated within a layer 2 frame; and ([0054] The extractor EXTR is enabled to extract from the payload of the received Layer 2 packet, according to this preferred embodiment: the payload of the Ethernet packet P-Eth, a destination Layer 3 address DEST-IP of a Layer 3 packet, according to this preferred embodiment: the destination IP address of the IP packet. The extractor EXTR is enabled to determine in the Ethernet payload P-Eth the destination IP address. How this can be realized is explained in a previous paragraph. However, other methods can be used in order to determine the destination IP address of the IP packet in the payload of the Ethernet packet. These different methods are going beyond the aim of the present invention. The aim of the present invention is that the extractor is enabled to extract from a Layer 3 packet that is encapsulated in the payload of a Layer 2 packet, the destination address of the Layer 3 packet.)
controlling, based on the location information, one or more operations of the access point. ([0056] The forwarding engine FE is enabled to receive the destination IP address from the extractor EXTR. Furthermore, the forwarding engine FE controls the retrieving of an associated interface from the forwarding database FDB based upon this destination IP address DEST-IP: IP-X. This means that the forwarding engine FE provides the destination IP address to the forwarding database and expects in return from the forwarding database FDB either an associated interface reference i.e. an interface of the network unit or a `no full match found--message`. [0057] In the event of reception of an associated interface e.g. INT5 from the forwarding database FDB the forwarding engine controls the forwarding of the received Ethernet packet towards this associated interface INT5.)
As to claims 2, 22, and 29, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the triggering event comprises receiving data at the access point and wherein receiving the location information comprises receiving the location information from one or more of the access point or a routing device. ([0053] As mentioned above, the extractor EXTR is coupled to one of the interfaces of the network unit e.g. INT1 to receive an Ethernet packet. Such an Ethernet packet is shown in FIG. 1 whereby the payload of the Ethernet packet is referred to as P-Eth. As a matter of example, this Ethernet packet has to be forwarded in the upstream direction i.e. from the workstation W-A towards the core of the network.)
As to claims 3, 23, and 30, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the management device comprises one or more of an authentication element, an authorization element, or an accounting element and wherein the management device is configured to control an operation of one or more of the access point and a routing device based on the location information. ([0058] In the event of reception of a `no full match found--message` by the forwarding engine FE from the forwarding database FDB, the forwarding engine FE replicates the received Ethernet packet and controls the forwarding of the received Ethernet packet towards a predetermined plurality of interfaces e.g. INT2, INT3, INT4, INT5 and INT6. The predetermined plurality of interfaces INT2, INT3, INT4, INT5 and INT6 is mostly determined as all the other interfaces of the network unit NU except the interface upon which the packet was received. In this way the network unit realizes a flooding of the Ethernet packet.)
As to claims 6, 26, and 33, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the one or more operations of the access point comprises provisioning the access point. ([0082] in response to the extraction, retrieving by the forwarding engine FE, with the determined destination IP address i.e. IP-X, and upon detection of a full match with one of the IP addresses in the association entries in the forwarding database FDB, from the forwarding database (FDB), the associated interface INT5 that is associated to the IP address having the full match; and [0083] thereby enabling the forwarding engine FE of the network unit NU to forward the Ethernet packet to the associated interface INT5.)
As to claims 7, 27, and 34, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising causing, based on the location information, one or more portions of targeted content to be sent to a user device associated with the access point. ([0082] in response to the extraction, retrieving by the forwarding engine FE, with the determined destination IP address i.e. IP-X, and upon detection of a full match with one of the IP addresses in the association entries in the forwarding database FDB, from the forwarding database (FDB), the associated interface INT5 that is associated to the IP address having the full match; and [0083] thereby enabling the forwarding engine FE of the network unit NU to forward the Ethernet packet to the associated interface INT5.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 24, 25, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moreels in view of Sridharan et al. (US20130061047A1).
As to claims 4, 24, and 31, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1,
But does not specifically teach:
wherein the location information comprises a Media Access Control (MAC) address associated with the access point.
However Sridharan teaches wherein the location information comprises a Media Access Control (MAC) address associated with the access point. (Fig. 7D inner MAC [0128] FIG. 7D illustrates an example of an encapsulated packet 700 that may store a tenant ID or Virtual Subnet ID in a header, according to some embodiments. [0129] In this example, the GRE protocol may encapsulate an inner frame, which may be an Ethernet frame 706 sent by a VM originating traffic. The Ethernet frame 706 may comprise an inner Ethernet MAC header followed by the inner IP header, followed by the IP payload. In some embodiments, the inner MAC header and the inner IP header may use customer address (CA) information, such as source and destination customer MAC addresses, corresponding to a virtual network on which the originating VM is communicating. [0130] For example, the outer IP header and the outer MAC header may correspond to provider addresses (PA) that identify computing devices on a physical network fabric.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the packet encapsulation method of Moreels with the methods of Sridharan in order to route packets to specific destinations between different networks.
As to claims 5, 25, and 32, Moreels teaches the method of claim 1,
But does not specifically teach:
wherein the location information is encapsulated in the layer 2 frame using one or more of internet control messaging protocol, address resolution protocol, or connectivity fault management protocol.
However Sridharan teaches wherein the location information is encapsulated in the layer 2 frame using one or more of internet control messaging protocol, address resolution protocol, or connectivity fault management protocol.
(Fig. 7D outer MAC encapsulating Outer IP that encapsulates inner MAC [0128] FIG. 7D illustrates an example of an encapsulated packet 700 that may store a tenant ID or Virtual Subnet ID in a header, according to some embodiments. [0129] In this example, the GRE protocol may encapsulate an inner frame, which may be an Ethernet frame 706 sent by a VM originating traffic. The Ethernet frame 706 may comprise an inner Ethernet MAC header followed by the inner IP header, followed by the IP payload. In some embodiments, the inner MAC header and the inner IP header may use customer address (CA) information, such as source and destination customer MAC addresses, corresponding to a virtual network on which the originating VM is communicating. [0130] For example, the outer IP header and the outer MAC header may correspond to provider addresses (PA) that identify computing devices on a physical network fabric.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the packet encapsulation method of Moreels with the methods of Sridharan in order to route packets to specific destinations between different networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9933. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 Mon-Fri.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at (571) 270-1420. 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.
/Elton Williams/Examiner, Art Unit 2465