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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
First, Applicant submits that the first cited portion of Chunduri fails to disclose or
suggest that the node creates a path state advertisement, much less creates a path state advertisement for a path to the node.… Second, Applicant submits that the second cited portion of Chunduri also fails to disclose or suggest that a node creates a path state advertisement for a path to the node.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraph [0049], Chunduri states, “For example, the central entity 103 may determine the network topology using advertisements sent by each of the NEs 150 and 154 in the network 100, where the advertisements may include prefixes, SIDs, traffic engineering (TE) information, IDs of adjacent NEs, links, interfaces, ports, and routes.” (Emphasis added). And paragraph [0015] states, “The NE comprises a receiver configured to receive an advertisement comprising PPR information representing a PPR from a source to a destination in the network…” (Emphasis added). Since each of the NEs sends advertisements which contain source information, Chunduri clearly teaches the claimed limitations, create, by a node, a path state advertisement for a path to the node.
Applicant also argued:
In response, Applicant submits that the cited portions of Chunduri fail to disclose or suggest the feature of a path state advertisement that "includes a destination node field including an address identifying the node."… Second, Applicant submits that the portions of Chunduri which do describe the advertisement fail to disclose or suggest a destination node field including an address identifying the node. Namely, the advertisement 400 of Chunduri does not include a destination node field. Rather, as illustrated in FIG. 4A of Chunduri and described in corresponding portions of Chunduri, "...the advertisement 400 includes a type field 403, a length field 406, a flags field 409, a prefix-length field 412, a MT-ID field 415, a prefix field 418 (also referred to herein as an FEC/prefix field), a PPR-ID field 421, a PPR Type field 424, a PPR-PDEs field 427 (also referred to herein as a path field), an attributes field 430, and/or a non-path sub-TLVs field 433." (See Chunduri, Para. [0101], emphasis added). This portion of Chunduri is devoid of any disclosure or suggestion that the advertisement "includes a destination node field including an address identifying the node."
The Examiner notes that portions of paragraph [0101] which Applicant has omitted states, “The PPR-PDEs field 427 includes PPR-PDE fields 427A-N. In an embodiment, each of the PPR-PDE fields 427A-N includes a label, address, or ID of an element 201-219 or 250-261 (e.g., topological NEs 250-259, non-topological NEs 260-261, or links 201-219) on the PPR 220A-B. While the advertisement 400 is only shown to include these fields, it should be appreciated that the advertisement 400 may include any additional fields as necessary to include information regarding the PPR 220A-B from a source 270 to a destination 280 in the network 200.” (Emphasis added). In essence, the advertisement 400 includes source and destination addresses of NEs which create or send the advertisements. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Chunduri discloses the feature of a path state advertisement that "includes a destination node field including an address identifying the node."
Applicant further argued:
Applicant submits that, while Chunduri generally discloses advertisements and data packets, the cited portion of Chunduri is discussing the forwarding of a data packet, not an advertisement…. Thus, the cited portion of Chunduri fails to disclose or suggest the feature of "send, by the node toward the adjacent node via the link, the path state advertisement."
The Examiner notes that in paragraph [0049], Chunduri states, “For example, the central entity 103 may determine the network topology using advertisements sent by each of the NEs 150 and 154 in the network 100, where the advertisements may include prefixes, SIDs, traffic engineering (TE) information, IDs of adjacent NEs, links, interfaces, ports, and routes.” (Emphasis added). Thus contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Chunduri discloses forwarding of advertisements and teaches the feature of "send, by the node toward the adjacent node via the link, the path state advertisement."
Applicant also argued:
This portion of Chunduri does not disclose or suggest a count value being included in the advertisement and, even assuming arguendo that it could be interpreted as disclosing inclusion of a count value in an advertisement (which Applicant maintains that it cannot), there is no disclosure or suggestion that such a count of the number of times that the network element forwards the data packet is indicative of path cost…. In other words, the cited portions of Ogier merely disclose link cost information, not path cost information. The cited portions of Ogier fail to disclose or suggest a cost associated with a path to a node.
Initially, the Examiner submits that since Ogier is cited to teach the limitation, a cost field configured to indicate a cost associated with the path to the node, Chunduri is not required to teach this limitation.
In paragraph [0198], Ogier states, “One exemplary path selection algorithm is to apply Dijkstra's algorithm to compute shortest paths (with respect to cost, c) to all destinations.” (Emphasis added). Thus contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Ogier does disclose path cost information and a cost associated with a path to a node.
Applicant also remarked:
First, Applicant submits that Paragraph [0007] of Chunduri merely discloses that the ingress node that receives the advertisement (as described in Paragraph [0006] of Chunduri) updates its forwarding database to include the information included in the advertisement, not that the advertisement is updated or modified…. Thus, Applicant submits that the cited portions of Chunduri fail to disclose or suggest the feature of "modify, by the first node, the path state advertisement to form a modified path state advertisement."
The Examiner notes that in paragraph [0044], Chunduri states, “In an embodiment, the PPR information includes a preferred path routing (PPR) identifier (ID) (PPR-ID) and identifiers of the elements on the PPR. In an embodiment, in the control plane, the NE forwards the PPR information to all of the other NEs in the network in an advertisement. In an embodiment, in the data plane, the NEs in the PPR update local forwarding databases with PPR-ID and determines the respective NE (nexthop information) that is identified in the advertised PPR information. In this way, when the NE receives a data packet including a PPR-ID in the data plane, the NE forwards the data packet along the PPR instead of the shortest path.” (Emphasis added). In other words, the NEs generate routing advertisements that carry preferred path information instead of the shortest path information which is a modification of the advertisements. The NEs then propagate the advertisements to other network elements so that they update their forwarding/routing behavior accordingly. This results in changing how routing advertisements are generated and propagated within the network. Thus Chunduri clearly discloses the feature of "modify, by the first node, the path state advertisement to form a modified path state advertisement."
Applicant furthermore presented similar arguments towards claims 26-34 which have been addressed as above.
The Examiner points out that the pending claims must be "given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" [In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969)] and "consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach" [In re Cortright, 49 USPQ2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1999)]. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited references teach all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunduri et al. (2020/0382415) in view of Ogier et al. (2002/0062388).
As per claim 21, Chunduri et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: create, by a node, a path state advertisement for a path to the node that includes a link between the node and an adjacent node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0006, 0049 and 0166], wherein the path state advertisement includes a destination node field including an address identifying the node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0015, 0101, 0117-0119], a path field configured to include an ordered list of identifiers of a set of elements of the path to the node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0072], and a counter field configured to indicate a counter associated with the path to the node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0103]; and
send, by the node toward the adjacent node via the link, the path state advertisement [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0049 and 0120].
But Chunduri et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Ogier et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a cost field configured to indicate a cost associated with the path to the node [Ogier et al., paragraphs 0047, 0099 and 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chunduri et al. with Ogier et al. in order to disseminate topology and link-state information over a multi-hop network comprised of nodes by maintaining a path tree for each source node in the network that can produce an update message.
As per claim 24, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the path field includes an identifier of the link and the cost field includes a cost of the link [Ogier et al., paragraph 0047].
As per claim 25, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the path state advertisement includes a path identifier assigned by the node for the path to the node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0049].
As per claim 26, Chunduri et al. teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive, by a first node from a second node via a first link between the first node and the second node, a path state advertisement originated by a destination node for a path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0006, 0049 and 0166], wherein the path state advertisement includes a destination node field including an address identifying the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0015, 0101 and 0117-0119], a path field including an ordered list of identifiers of a set of elements of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0072], and a counter field including a counter of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0103];
modify, by the first node, the path state advertisement to form a modified path state advertisement [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0007, 0044 and 0054]; and
send, by the first node toward a third node via a second link between the first node and the third node, the modified path state advertisement [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0049 and 0174-0176].
But Chunduri et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Ogier et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a cost field including a cost of the path to the destination node [Ogier et al., paragraphs 0047, 0099 and 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chunduri et al. with Ogier et al. in order to disseminate topology and link-state information over a multi-hop network comprised of nodes by maintaining a path tree for each source node in the network that can produce an update message.
As per claim 27, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein, to modify the path state advertisement to form the modified path state advertisement, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: update the ordered list of identifiers in the path field of the path state advertisement to include an identifier of the first link [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0118]; and update the cost in the cost field of the path state advertisement by adding the cost of the first link [Ogier et al., paragraph 0099].
As per claim 28, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the path field includes an identifier of the first link, wherein the cost includes a link cost of the first link [Ogier et al., paragraph 0085].
As per claim 29, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 28, wherein, to modify the path state advertisement to form the modified path state advertisement, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: update the ordered list of identifiers in the path field of the path state advertisement to include an identifier of the second link; and update the cost in the cost field of the path state advertisement by adding the cost of the second link [Ogier et al., paragraph ].
As per claim 30, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: maintain, by the first node in a forwarding table of the first node, a path state entry for the destination node, wherein the path state entry includes a mapping of the address identifying the destination node to path information for a path from the first node to the destination node. [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0056-0058].
As per claim 31, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the path state advertisement includes a path identifier assigned by the second node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0063].
As per claim 32, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the modified path state advertisement includes a path identifier assigned by the first node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0077].
As per claim 33, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 32, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: maintain, by the first node in a path identifier mapping table of the first node, a mapping of the path identifier assigned by the first node for the path to the destination node to the path identifier assigned by the second node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0086-0089].
As per claim 34, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the modified path state advertisement includes a path identifier assigned by the first node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0094].
As per claim 35, Chunduri et al. an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive, by a node, a path state advertisement originated by a destination node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0006, 0049 and 0166], wherein the path state advertisement includes a destination node field including an address identifying the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0015, 0101 and 0117-0119], a path field including an ordered list of identifiers of a set of elements of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0072], and a counter field including an indication of a counter of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0103]; and
support, by the node based on the path state advertisement, communication of a packet toward the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0049 and 0120].
But Chunduri et al. fails to explicitly teach, however, Ogier et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches a cost field including an indication of a cost of the path to the destination node [Ogier et al., paragraphs 0047, 0099 and 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chunduri et al. with Ogier et al. in order to disseminate topology and link-state information over a multi-hop network comprised of nodes by maintaining a path tree for each source node in the network that can produce an update message.
As per claim 36, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein, to support communication of the packet toward the destination node, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: select, by the node from a set of available paths to the destination based on the cost of the path to the destination node, the path to the destination node; and forward, by the node via the path to the destination node, the packet [Ogier et al., paragraph 0093].
As per claim 37, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein, to support communication of the packet toward the destination node, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: include, by the node within the packet, a source route including the ordered list of identifiers of the set of elements of the path to the destination node; and forward, by the node toward a second node associated with a first identifier in the set of identifiers of the ordered list of elements of the path to the destination node, the packet [Chunduri et al., paragraphs 0016-0020].
As per claim 38, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the path state advertisement is received from a second node, wherein the path state advertisement includes a path identifier assigned by the second node for the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0094].
As per claim 39, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 38, wherein, to support communication of the packet toward the destination node, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: include, by the node within the packet, the path identifier assigned by the second node for the path to the destination node; and forward, by the node toward the second node, the packet [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0099].
As per claim 40, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the path field includes an ordered list of identifiers of all elements of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0105].
As per claim 41, Chunduri-Ogier teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the path field includes an ordered list of identifiers of all elements of the path to the destination node [Chunduri et al., paragraph 0115].
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444