DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 1/26/2026. Claims 14-20 have been previously canceled. Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are currently 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection made in view of newly cited Xie (U.S. Publication US 2022/0239590 A1).
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include a new limitation stating “querying, by the first site device, a forwarding table based on the IP address of the second site device, the forwarding table recording a mapping relationship between the IP address of the second site device and a next-hop outbound interface; determining that the next-hop outbound interface points to the first SD-WAN tunnel”. Independent claims 10 and 21 include similar new limitations. Although previously cited Zhang (U.S. Publication US 2019/0386837 A1) does teach performing address look-ups in a table to determine a next hop (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraphs 35-36 of Zhang), Zhang does not specifically disclose determining a next-hop outbound interface pointing to a SD-WAN tunnel based on a mapping relationship between the IP address and the next-hop outbound interface.
However, newly cited Xie discloses a network device obtaining based on a routing table a next-hop neighbor of a tunnel, wherein a label of the tunnel is obtained based on a stored correspondence between an IP address of a second network device and the next-hop (See paragraph 116 and paragraph 133 of Xie). Thus, it is believed that the amended claim limitations are rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Xie. Please see the rejections below for further detail.
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, 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 1-5, 9-13, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (U.S. Publication US 2019/0386837 A1) in view of Xie (U.S. Publication US 2022/0239590 A1) and Nainar et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0314232 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 21, Zhang discloses a first site device comprising: a memory storing computer instructions; at least one processor coupled to the memory, when the computer instructions executed by the at least one processor, cause the first site device to perform a multicast communication method (See the abstract, paragraph 58, paragraphs 62-63, and Figure 3 of Zhang for reference to a BIER proxy device, which is a first site device, comprising a controller including a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to perform a multicast packet transmission method). Zhang also discloses receiving, by a first site device, a first packet, wherein the first packet comprises a first bit index explicit replication (BIER) header and multicast data, and the first BIER header indicates a set of destination nodes of the multicast data (See paragraph 33, paragraph 37, and Figure 1B of Zhang for reference to BIER proxy device receiving a multicast packet having a BIER header that includes a bit string identifying one or more intended recipients of the multicast packet). Zhang further discloses generating, by the first site device, a second packet based on the first packet, wherein the second packet comprises tunnel encapsulation header, a second BIER header, and the multicast data, wherein a destination address of the first tunnel encapsulation header is an internet protocol (IP) address of a second site device, wherein the internet protocol (IP) address of the second site device is an egress address of a first tunnel between the first site device and the second site device, and wherein the second BIER header indicates the set of destination nodes of the multicast data (See paragraph 24, paragraph 30, paragraphs 39-44, and Figures 1C-1D of Zhang for reference to the BIER proxy device generating a copy of the BIER multicast packet by modifying the BIER header based on the BIER egress device associated with the copy of the BIER-encapsulated multicast packet and encapsulating the BIER multicast packet in a unicast tunnel between the BIER proxy device and a BIER forwarding device, which is a second site device connected to the egress device, wherein addresses associated with the devices are IP addresses determined based on DIER domain address look-ups). Zhang also discloses sending, by the first site device, the second packet to the second site device through the first tunnel (See paragraphs 43-44 and Figure 1D of Zhang for reference to the BIER proxy device transmitting the copy of the BIER-encapsulated multicast packet to the BIER forwarding device via the respective unicast tunnel). Although Zhang does teach performing address look-ups in a table to determine a next hop (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraphs 35-36 of Zhang), Zhang does not specifically disclose querying, by the first site device, a forwarding table based on the IP address of the second site device, the forwarding table recording a mapping relationship between the IP address of the second site device and a next-hop outbound interface; determining that the next-hop outbound interface points to the first SD-WAN tunnel. However, Xie, in the field of communications, discloses a network device obtaining based on a routing table a next-hop neighbor of a tunnel, wherein a label of the tunnel is obtained based on a stored correspondence between an IP address of a second network device and the next-hop (See paragraph 116 and paragraph 133 of Xie). The technique taught by Xie of using a routing table storing a mapping relationship between an IP address and a next-hop interface and determining a label of a tunnel used to forward data to the next-hop is old and well known in the art of communications as a means of determining outbound routing information based on IP addresses. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Xie, to combine using a routing table storing a mapping relationship between an IP address and a next-hop interface and determining a label of a tunnel used to forward data to the next-hop, as suggested by Xie, within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to provide a means of determining outbound routing information based on IP addresses. Further, although, as shown above, Zhang does disclose using IP addresses and BIER headers, Zhang does not specifically disclose using IPv6 and BIERv6. Also, although Zhang does disclose using tunnels to transmit encapsulated multicast packets, Zhang does not specifically disclose using a SD-WAN. However, Nainar et al., in the field of communications, discloses using a SDWAN (See paragraph 2 of Nainar et al.), as well as SDNs deployed using IPv6 and BIER, such that BIERv6 is used with IPv6 (See paragraph 48 of Nainar et al.). Nainar et al. discloses using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER has the advantage of providing a centralized approach to network management allowing a network operator to centralize the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provision, monitoring, and troubleshooting (See paragraph 2 of Nainar et al. for reference to these advantages). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Nainar et al., to combine using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER, as suggested by Nainar et al., within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to provide a centralized approach to network management allowing a network operator to centralize the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provision, monitoring, and troubleshooting.
With respect to claims 2 and 22, Zhang discloses wherein the first BIERv6 header is the same as the second BIER header, a destination address of the first BIER header is an IP address of a target site device, and the method further comprises: determining, by the first site device, based on the IP address of the target site device, to send the second packet to the target site device through the first tunnel (See paragraphs 42-43 of Zhang for reference to generating the copy of the BIER multicast packet and determining and determining the tunnel to forward the BEIR multicast packet to the BIER forwarding device based on the egress device associated with the BIER header, such that in an embodiment wherein all egress devices indicated by the BIER header are associated with the same BIER forwarding device, the BIER header of the copy of the multicast packet is the same as the BIER header for the received multicast packet). As shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claims 3 and 23, Zhang discloses wherein the determining, based on the IP address of the target site device, to send the second packet to the target site device through the first tunnel comprises: querying, by the first site device, the forwarding table (See paragraphs 42-43 of Zhang for reference to performing a lookup in a BIFT associated with the BIER proxy device to identify a bit forwarding neighbor device that is a next hop in a path to a BIER egress device wherein the BIER proxy device determines to transmit the copy of the multicast packet via a unicast tunnel associated with the determined next hop). As shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Xie renders obvious a routing table storing a correspondence between an IP address and a next-hop used to determine a tunnel label. As also shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claim 4 and 24, Zhang discloses wherein a destination address of the first BIER header is an IP address of the first site device, and a destination address of the second BIER header is an IP address of a target site device (See paragraph 30, paragraph 34, and paragraphs 42-43 of Zhang for reference to the destination of the BIER multicast packet received by the BIER proxy device being an IP address of the BIER proxy device and the destination address of the copy of the BIER multicast packet being an IP address of the BIER forwarding device). As shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claim 5 and 25, Zhang discloses determining, by the first site device, the IP address of the target site device and a next-hop site based on a bit string in the first BIER header and a BIER forwarding table, wherein the next-hop site is a first site, and the target site device is located at the first site; and determining, by the first site device based on the first site, to send the second packet to the second site device through the first SD-WAN tunnel (See paragraphs 42-43 of Zhang for reference to performing a lookup in a BIFT associated with the BIER proxy device to identify a bit forwarding neighbor device that is a next hop in a path to a BIER egress device wherein the BIER proxy device determines to transmit the copy of the multicast packet via a unicast tunnel associated with the determined next hop). As shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein the method further comprising: generating, by the first site device, a third packet based on the first packet, wherein the third packet comprises a second tunnel encapsulation header, a third BIER header, and the multicast data, wherein a destination address of the second tunnel encapsulation header is an IP address of a third site device, wherein the IP address of the third site device is an egress address of a second tunnel between the first site device and the third site device, and wherein the third BIER header indicates the set of destination nodes of the multicast data; and sending, by the first site device, the third packet to the third site device through the second SD-WAN tunnel (See paragraphs 39-44 and Figures 1C-1D of Zhang for reference to the BIER proxy device generating multiple copies of the BIER multicast packet corresponding to multiple BIER forwarding devices by modifying the BIER header based on the BIER egress devices associated with each copy of the BIER-encapsulated multicast packet and encapsulating each BIER multicast packet copy in a unicast tunnel between the BIER proxy device and each BIER forwarding device, wherein a second copy is sent to a second BIER forwarding device that acts as a the claimed third packet and third site device respectively, wherein addresses associated with the devices are IP addresses determined based on BIER domain address look-ups). As shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 1 and 21.
With respect to claim 10, Zhang discloses a multicast communication method (See the abstract of Zhang for reference to a method of transmitting BIER-encapsulated multicast packets). Zhang also discloses receiving, by a second site device, through a first tunnel, a first packet sent by a first site device, wherein the first packet comprises a first tunnel encapsulation header, a first bit index explicit replication (BIER) internet protocol encapsulation header, and multicast data, wherein a destination address of the first tunnel encapsulation header is an internet protocol (IP) address of the second site device, wherein the IP address of the second site device is an egress address of the first tunnel between the first site device and the second site device, and wherein a second BIER header indicates a set of destination nodes of the multicast data (See paragraph 33, paragraphs 42-46, and 1C-1D of Zhang for reference to receiving by a BIER forwarding device, which is a second device, a copy of a BIER multicast packet via a unicast tunnel, wherein the copy of the multicast packet includes tunnel encapsulation having the BIER forwarding device as a destination of a tunnel between a BIER proxy device, which is a first site device sending the copy of the multicast packet, and the BIER forwarding device, wherein a BIER header indicates one or more intended recipients of the multicast packet). Zhang also discloses generating, by the second site device, a second packet based on the first packet, wherein the second packet comprises the multicast data; and forwarding, by the second site device, the second packet (See paragraphs 46-49 and Figure 1E of Zhang et al. for reference to the BIER forwarding device receiving the copy of the multicast packet and transmitting a copy of the multicast packet to a BIER egress device based on the BIER header information of the multicast packet). Although Zhang does teach performing address look-ups in a table to determine a next hop (See paragraphs 24-25 and paragraphs 35-36 of Zhang), Zhang does not specifically disclose querying, by the second site device, a forwarding table based on the IP address of the third site device, the forwarding table recording a mapping relationship between the IP address of the third site device and a next-hop outbound interface; determining that the next-hop outbound interface points to a second SD-WAN tunnel. However, Xie, in the field of communications, discloses a network device obtaining based on a routing table a next-hop neighbor of a tunnel, wherein a label of the tunnel is obtained based on a stored correspondence between an IP address of a second network device and the next-hop (See paragraph 116 and paragraph 133 of Xie). The technique taught by Xie of using a routing table storing a mapping relationship between an IP address and a next-hop interface and determining a label of a tunnel used to forward data to the next-hop is old and well known in the art of communications as a means of determining outbound routing information based on IP addresses. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Xie, to combine using a routing table storing a mapping relationship between an IP address and a next-hop interface and determining a label of a tunnel used to forward data to the next-hop, as suggested by Xie, within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to provide a means of determining outbound routing information based on IP addresses. Further although, as shown above, Zhang does disclose using IP addresses and BIER headers, Zhang does not specifically disclose using IPv6 and BIERv6. Also, although Zhang does disclose using tunnels to transmit encapsulated multicast packets, Zhang does not specifically disclose using a SD-WAN. However, Nainar et al., in the field of communications, discloses using a SDWAN (See paragraph 2 of Nainar et al.), as well as SDNs deployed using IPv6 and BIER, such that BIERv6 is used with IPv6 (See paragraph 48 of Nainar et al.). Nainar et al. discloses using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER has the advantage of providing a centralized approach to network management allowing a network operator to centralize the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provision, monitoring, and troubleshooting (See paragraph 2 of Nainar et al. for reference to these advantages). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Nainar et al., to combine using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER, as suggested by Nainar et al., within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to provide a centralized approach to network management allowing a network operator to centralize the intelligence of the network and provide for more network automation, operations simplification, and centralized provision, monitoring, and troubleshooting.
With respect to claim 11, Zhang discloses wherein the second packet comprises a second tunnel encapsulation header, a second BIER header, and the multicast data, wherein a destination address of the second tunnel encapsulation header is an IP address of a third site device, wherein the IP address of the third site device is an egress address of a second tunnel between the second site device and the third site device, and wherein the second BIER header indicates the set of destination nodes of the multicast data; and wherein the forwarding, by the second site device, the second packet comprises: sending, by the second site device, the second packet to the third site device through the second SD-WAN tunnel (See paragraph 42-49 and Figures 1C-1E of Zhang for reference to copies of packets being sent though multiple different types of unicast tunnels between the BIER ingress device, the BIER proxy device, and the BIER forwarding devices, such that different tunnels may be used to send the different copies of the packets with each copy having a BIER header and corresponding tunnel encapsulation with address information of the receiving device of the corresponding tunnel). As shown above in the rejection of claim 10, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, Zhang discloses wherein the first BIER header is the same as the second BIER header, a destination address of the first BIER header is an IPv6 address of a target site device, and the method further comprises :determining, by the second site device, based on the IPv6 address of the target site device, to send the second packet to the target site device through the second tunnel (See paragraphs 42-49 of Zhang for reference to generating the copies of the BIER multicast packet and determining and determining the tunnels to forward the BEIR multicast packet to the BIER forwarding device based on the egress devices associated with the BIER header, such that in an embodiment wherein all egress devices indicated by the BIER header are associated with the same BIER forwarding device, the BIER header of the copy of the multicast packet is the same as the BIER header for the received multicast packet). As shown above in the rejection of claim 10, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 10.
With respect to claim 13, Zhang discloses wherein a destination address of the first BIER header is an IP address of the second site device, and a destination address of the second BIER header is an IP address of a target site device (See paragraph 30, paragraph 34, and paragraphs 42-49 of Zhang for reference to the destination of the BIER multicast packet received by the BIER proxy device being an IP address of the BIER proxy device, the destination address of the copy of the BIER multicast packet being an IP address of the BIER forwarding device, and the destination address of the further copy of the BIER multicast packet forwarded by the BIER forwarding device being an address of the BIER egress device). As shown above in the rejection of claim 10, Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. Thus, these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claim 10.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xie and Nainar et al., and in further view of Xie et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0377168 A1; hereafter referred to as Xie et al. ‘168).
With respect to claims 6 and 26, as shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, the combination of Zhang and Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. The combination does not specifically disclose wherein the IPv6 address of the target site device is a segment identifier (SID) of an End.BIER type. However, Xie et al. ‘168, in the field of communications, discloses using BIERv6 packets having a SID of an End.BIER type (See paragraph 157 of Xie et al. ‘168). Using an SID of an End.BIER type provides the advantage of allowing the network to be informed that a destination address is an address of an endpoint for a bit index explicit replication function (See paragraph 157 of Xie et al. ‘168 for reference to this purpose of the End.BIER type). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Xie et al. ‘168, to combine using an SID of an End.BIER type, as suggested by Xie et al. ‘168, within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to allow the network to be informed that a destination address is an address of an endpoint for a bit index explicit replication function.
Claims 7-8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Xie and Nainar et al., and in further view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0370298 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 27, as shown above in the rejection of claims 1 and 21, the combination of Zhang and Nainar et al. renders obvious using SDWAN deployed with IPv6 and BIER. The combination does not specifically disclose wherein, before receiving, by the first site device, the first packet, the method further comprises: sending, by the first site device, first BIER information to the target site device, wherein the first BIER information comprises at least one of the IPv6 address of the first site device, a BIER bit forwarding router identity (BFR-ID) of the first site device, or a BIER bit forwarding router prefix (BFR-prefix) of the first site device; and receiving, by the first site device, second BIER information advertised by the target site device, wherein the second BIER information comprises one or more of the IPv6 address of the target site device, a BFR-ID of the target site device, or a BFR-prefix of the target site device.
With respect to claim 8, Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the first BIER information or the second BIER information is carried in a border gateway protocol BGP packet.
With further respect to claims 7-8 and 27, Zhu et al., in the field of communications, discloses a network transmitting BIER messages using IPv6 message headers, wherein BIER routing information is exchanged between nodes via BGP advertisement messages (See paragraphs 10-13 of Zhu et al.). Exchanging BIER routing information between nodes via BGP advertisement messages has the advantage of allowing BIER routing information to be disseminated throughout network nodes such that BIER packets may be properly routed. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Zhu et al., to combine exchanging BIER routing information between nodes via BGP advertisement messages, as suggested by Zhu et al., within the system and method of Zhang, with the motivation being to allow BIER routing information to be disseminated throughout network nodes such that BIER packets may be properly routed.
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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461