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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites, “the first route reflector receives the routes of the particular router from the first route reflector” in lines 2-3. It is not clear how the first route reflector receives route … from the first route reflector. The Examiner assumes that it is intended to claim “the first edge router receives the routes of the particular router from the first route reflector”.
Regarding claim 19, the same rejection as claim 10 is applied.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scholz et al. (US 2023/0116163 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scholz discloses a method for implementing an SD-WAN (software-defined wide area network) connecting a plurality of sites (e.g. 140) at a plurality of physical locations (figs. 1A-1C), the method comprising: at a first hub router (110B) of the SD-WAN that comprises (i) a plurality of edge routers (e.g. 110A-110B) at the plurality of sites (e.g. 140A-140B), (ii) a plurality of route reflectors for a plurality of regions, each region comprising one or more sites (figs. 1A-1C), and (iii) a plurality of hub routers for the plurality of regions, each particular hub router of each particular region forwarding packets between the edge routers of the sites of the particular region and between the regions (paragraph [0004]-[0005]; [0011]; [0021]; [0100]; [0113]-[0114]): establishing, with a first edge router located at a first site in a first region, a new connection for the first hub router to use to connect the first edge router to a second edge router of a second site in the first region (paragraph [0021]-[0022]; [0031]-[0033]; [0037]; [0054]-[0055]; [0068]; [0072]; [0076]; [0079]-[0081]; and so on, illustrating establishing with first edge router, such as spoke router 110A, a connection to connect the router 11A to a second edge router, such as 110C, through the hub router 110B); determining that a peer-connection notification regarding a set of other routers of which the first hub router has been notified has to be sent to the first edge router (paragraph [0005]; [0008]; [0010]-[0014]; [0041]-[0042]; [0087]; [0098]-[0100]; [0106]-[0109]; [0125]; [0158]-[0160]; [0166]-[0169]; and etc., illustrating the determination of peer-connection information or reachability information of the routers to be sent to the first or second router 110A or 110C); and sending the peer-connection notification to the first edge router for the first edge router to analyze in order to determine whether the first edge router needs to obtain routes associated with each other router in the set of other routers (paragraph [0010]-[0011]; [0022]; [0055]; [0083]-[0087]; [0095]; [0098]-[0100]; [0106]-[0109]; [0115]; [0125]; [0133]-[0135]; [0147]; and so on, describing the reachability information is sent to the edge router such as router 110A or 110C so that the edge router determines whether or not to directly obtain and transmit routes each other).
Regarding claim 12, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding a non-transitory machine readable medium, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2 and 13, Scholz discloses wherein for each particular router in the set of other routers, the peer-connection notification comprises at least an identifier associated with the particular router and one or more indications of whether the first hub router has (i) a direct connection to the particular router or (ii) a relayed connection to the particular router (paragraph [0140]-[0144]; [0005]).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Scholz discloses wherein the one or more indications comprises a particular metric value, wherein when the first hub router has a direct connection to the particular router, the particular metric value is one, wherein when the first hub router has a relayed connection to the particular router, the particular metric value is incremented for each additional hop between the first hub router and the particular router (paragraph [0005]; [0009]-[0011]; [0022]; [0037]; [0043]; [0071]; [0080]; [0094]-[0099]; [0108]-[0109]; [0114]; [0117]-[0118]; [0126]; [0129]-[0134]; [0147]-[0148]; [0159]-[0160]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Scholz discloses wherein for each particular router in the set of other routers, the peer-connection notification further comprises endpoint information associated with the particular router (paragraph [0009]; [0043]-[0045]; [0060]-[0062]; [0066]; [0073]; [0085]; and so on).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Scholz discloses wherein the first edge router analyzes the peer-connection notification in order to determine whether the first edge router needs to obtain routes associated with each other router in the set of routers by analyzing the peer-connection notification to determine with which routers in the set of other routers the first edge router needs to exchange communications (paragraph [0010]-[0011]; [0022]; [0055]; [0083]-[0087]; [0095]; [0098]-[0100]; [0106]-[0109]; [0115]; [0125]; [0133]-[0135]; [0147]; and so on).
Regarding claim 9-10, and 19, Scholz discloses wherein the first edge router has a direct connection to a first route reflector, wherein when the first edge router determines it needs to obtain routes associated with at least one particular router in the set of routers, the first edge router requests the routes of the particular router from the first route reflector (paragraph [0141]-[0142]; [0121]; and so on), and wherein when the first route reflector has a direct connection to the particular router, the first route reflector receives the routes of the particular router from the first route reflector and when the first route reflector does not have a direct connection to the particular router, the first edge router receives the routes of the particular router from the first hub router (paragraph [0140]-[0150]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Scholz discloses wherein the set of routers comprises (i) one or more hub routers, and (ii) one or more edge routers located at one or more branch sites in one or more regions (figs. 1A-1C).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz in view of Kariyappa et al. (US 2024/0073147 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 15, as applied above, Scholz discloses one or more indications. Scholz does not disclose wherein the one or more indications comprises one of (i) a direct connection flag that signifies a direct connection between the first hub router and the particular router and (ii) a relayed connection flag that signifies a relayed connection between the first hub router and the particular router.
Kariyappa teaches wherein the one or more indications comprises one of (i) a direct connection flag that signifies a direct connection between the first hub router and the particular router and (ii) a relayed connection flag that signifies a relayed connection between the first hub router and the particular router (paragraph [0055]-[0059]; [0065]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the one or more indications comprises one of (i) a direct connection flag that signifies a direct connection between the first hub router and the particular router and (ii) a relayed connection flag that signifies a relayed connection between the first hub router and the particular router as taught by Kariyappa into Scholz in order to reduce latency and loss of communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461