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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application filed on 3/31/2023.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending with this action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/31/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration filed on 3/31/2023, is accepted by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Banerjee et al (US Pat # 10250399 B1 ) in view of Chandrashekhar et al (US Pub # 2021/0314291)
As per claim 1, Banerjee discloses method (Banerjee: “a method for multicast packet forwarding in a network element ”), comprising:
receiving, by a gateway switch of a network (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group & The system 100 includes a multicast source 102 in communication with a network element 104 which could be implemented as a modular switch chassis”), a join request for a first multicast group (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102”), wherein the network comprises a plurality of gateway switches that include the gateway switch (Banerjee: “a multicast source 102 in communication with a network element 104 which could be implemented as a modular switch chassis”);
selecting, by the gateway switch based on a receiver selection mechanism, a first gateway switch from the plurality of gateway switches in the network for receiving the first multicast flow (Banerjee: “On a typical modular switch chassis, whenever the control plane protocol receives a group request, source join, etc. associated with a multicast broadcast, the modular switch chassis programs the routing entries to a set of outgoing interface lists (OIFs) symmetrically across all line cards & The modular switch chassis 200 could serve as the network element 104 shown in FIG. 1 configured to implement asymmetric programming of multicast entries. In various embodiments, the modular switch chassis 200 could comprise a switch, e.g., a Top-of-Rack (ToR) switch, a leaf switch, a VTEP, a virtual switch or router, a router, an edge device, etc.”);
Examiner Note: Multiple switches are disclosed in the modular switch chassis and selection of each switch is mentioned.
Banerjee does not explicitly disclose the selection of the datacenter.
Chandra however discloses selecting, by the gateway switch based on a source selection mechanism, a first datacenter from a plurality of datacenters as a source of a first multicast flow of the first multicast group, wherein a respective datacenter provides the first multicast flow (Chandra: [0032 & 0152]: “for T1 logical routers that have SRs located in multiple datacenters, some embodiments allow (or require) the network administrator to select one of the datacenters as a primary site for the T1 logical router & datacenter that participate in the logical switch to which the IP address belongs (e.g., that participate in a multicast group defined within the datacenter for the logical switch ”),
sending, by the gateway switch to a respective other gateway switch of the plurality of gateway switches (Chandra: [0032]: “When a DCN that is located at a secondary datacenter sends a data message to an endpoint external to the T1 logical routers, the source MFE for the data message performs first-hop logical processing”), a control message comprising information indicating the selection of the source and receiver of the first multicast flow (Chandra: [0052]: “the new primary T1 SR sends out a routing protocol message indicating that it is the new T1 SR and default routes for the other T1 SR peers should be directed to it.”), wherein the control message notifies the first gateway switch to request the first flow from the first datacenter (Chandra: [0027]: “This newly-active logical network gateway notifies the logical network gateways for the logical switch at the other datacenters that require the information (i.e., the other datacenters spanned by the logical switch) that it is the new active member for its VTEP group (e.g., via a routing protocol message).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Chandra to figure out the selection of the datacenter. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to process data messages between multiple nodes (Chandra).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected based on rationale provided for claim 1.
As per claim 2, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the join request is received from (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102”), one of: a host coupled to a port of the gateway switch; and a remote gateway switch (Banerjee: the term ‘network element’ is meant to encompass any of the aforementioned elements, as well as servers (physical or virtually implemented on physical hardware), machines (physical or virtually implemented on physical hardware), end user devices, routers, switches, cable boxes, gateways, ”).
As per claim 4, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 1 (Banerjee: “a method for multicast packet forwarding in a network element ”), further comprising:
sending the join request for the first multicast group to the first datacenter (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102 & the source and receivers are connected together through one or more network elements, e.g. switches, at a datacenter”),
determining whether the gateway switch is the first gateway switch (Chandra: [ABS] “The logical network may include both logical switches (to which logical network DCNs attach) and logical routers. Each LFE (e.g., logical switch or logical router) is implemented across one or more datacenters ”). ; and
in response to the gateway switch being the first gateway switch (Chandra: [ABS] “a first logical network gateway in a first datacenter to process data messages between data compute nodes (DCNs) belonging to the logical network and operating in the first datacenter ”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Chandra to figure out the selection of the datacenter. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to process data messages between multiple nodes (Chandra).
As per claim 7, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, in response to receiving a subsequent join request for the first multicast group, the method further comprises providing the subsequent join request to the first gateway switch (Chandra: [0006 & ABS] “a second logical switch that is connected to the same tier-1 logical router as the first logical switch, then the source MFE performs logical processing for the first logical switch, the DR of the logical router, and the second logical switch to determine the destination of the data message & transmits the logical network data message encapsulated with the second tunnel header to a second logical network gateway in the second datacenter.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Chandra to figure out the selection of the datacenter. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to process data messages between multiple nodes (Chandra).
As per claim 9, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 1, sending, by the gateway switch, a join request for the first multicast group to the first datacenter (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102 & the source and receivers are connected together through one or more network elements, e.g. switches, at a datacenter”),
wherein, in response to determining unavailability of the first gateway switch, the method further comprises: identifying the first datacenter as the source of the first multicast flow of the first multicast group (Chandra: [ABS & 0152] “ first logical network gateway in a first datacenter to process data messages between data compute nodes (DCNs) belonging to the logical network and operating in the first datacenter and DCNs belonging to the logical network & all MFEs in the datacenter that participate in the logical switch to which the IP address belongs (e.g., that participate in a multicast group defined within the datacenter for the logical switch).”).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Chandra to figure out the selection of the datacenter. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to process data messages between multiple nodes (Chandra).
As per claim 10, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, in response to receiving a second join request for a second multicast group (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102”), the method further comprises:
selecting, by the gateway switch based on the receiver selection mechanism, a second gateway switch from the plurality of gateway switches for receiving the second multicast flow (Banerjee: “On a typical modular switch chassis, whenever the control plane protocol receives a group request, source join, etc. associated with a multicast broadcast, the modular switch chassis programs the routing entries to a set of outgoing interface lists (OIFs) symmetrically across all line cards & The modular switch chassis 200 could serve as the network element 104 shown in FIG. 1 configured to implement asymmetric programming of multicast entries. In various embodiments, the modular switch chassis 200 could comprise a switch, e.g., a Top-of-Rack (ToR) switch, a leaf switch, a VTEP, a virtual switch or router, a router, an edge device, etc.”);
Examiner Note: Multiple switches are disclosed in the modular switch chassis and selection of each switch is mentioned.
Banerjee does not explicitly disclose the selection of the datacenter.
Chandra however discloses selecting, by the gateway switch based on the receiver selection mechanism, a second datacenter from the plurality of datacenters as a source of a second multicast flow of the second multicast group (Chandra: [0032 & 0152]: “for T1 logical routers that have SRs located in multiple datacenters, some embodiments allow (or require) the network administrator to select one of the datacenters as a primary site for the T1 logical router & datacenter that participate in the logical switch to which the IP address belongs (e.g., that participate in a multicast group defined within the datacenter for the logical switch ”). .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Chandra to figure out the selection of the datacenter. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to process data messages between multiple nodes (Chandra).
Claims 12, 14, 17 & 19-20 are rejected based on rationale provided for claims 2, 4, 7, 9-10.
Claims 3, 8, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Banerjee et al (US Pat # 10250399 B1 ) in view of Chandrashekhar et al (US Pub # 2021/0314291) and in further view of Shah et al (US Pub # 2012/0075998).
As per claim 3, BanerJee/Chandra discloses the method of claim 2 method (Banerjee: “a method for multicast packet forwarding in a network element ”), wherein, in response to the join request being received from the remote gateway switch, the method further comprises receiving, at the gateway switch with the join request (Banerjee: “receiver A and receiver B each sent a request to join the multicast group associated with the multicast data stream broadcast by the source 102”) , bandwidth utilization, and health parameters associated with the remote gateway switch (Banerjee: “further scaling the routing capabilities of the network element to higher numbers with effective bandwidth utilization within the network element.”).
Examiner Note: Further scaling the routing capabilities of network is being interpreted as health parameters as they all factor in curing the multicast process.
Modified Banerjee does not explicitly disclose the multicast subscription
Shah however discloses information indicating multicast subscription (Shah: [ABS and 0023]: “the multicast router switches from periodically transmitting multicast membership general query messages to the multicast hosts of the subscriber & The multicast network 100 includes the multicast router 110, the multicast source 115, the multicast enabled layer 2 device 120, the access network 125, and the subscribers 130A-N. The multicast source 115 is the source of the multicast data traffic 170 for the multicast groups 180A-L ”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Shah to figure out the multicast subscription. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to impede the subscribed multicast groups (Shah: ABS).
As per claim 8, BanerJee/Chandra/Shah discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing, by the gateway switch, the information indicating the selection of the source and receiver of the first multicast flow in an entry of in an anchor data structure, wherein the entry further comprises a multicast address of the first multicast group (Shah: [ABS and 0023]: “the multicast enabled layer 2 device 120 adds the port to reach the multicast host 132A to a forwarding entry for the multicast group 180A in the multicast state structure 135. The multicast enabled layer 2 device 120 then floods the multicast membership report message 210 towards the multicast source 115 and the multicast router 110 at operation 2.3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Banerjee view of Shah to figure out the multicast subscription. One would be motivated to do so because this technique advantageously aids in to impede the subscribed multicast groups (Shah: ABS).
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected based on rationale provided for claims 3 and 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 and 15 and 16 are both objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 and 11, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Both claims need to be dissolved in all independent claims for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sibte Bukhari whose telephone number is (571) 270-7122. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIBTE H BUKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449