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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: sending module in claim 11 and the receiving module in claim 12,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ould-Brahim (U.S. 2008/0170578) in view of Bansal et al. (U.S. 2015/0381493), hereinafter Bansal.
With respect to Claim 1, Ould-Brahim teaches a message sending method, comprising:
sending, by an egress node, a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) update message to an ingress node to notify the ingress node of routing reachability information (¶ 0024, “In brief, MP-BGP network devices establish a reliable transport protocol connection with each other, exchange messages to open a BGP session, and then exchange their routing information (i.e., routing table). In general, this routing information includes the complete route to each network destination reachable from a BGP network device.”),
wherein the BGP update message comprises a tunnel encapsulation attribute, which comprises one or more pieces of tunnel encapsulation information, the tunnel encapsulation information comprising at least one of the following: (¶ 0023, “Before data associated with a BGP-VPN application can traverse the PSN 14 through the ESP 22, the PE routers 18 need to learn the route belonging to the given VPN. In one embodiment, the service provider uses the Multi-protocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP), described in RFC 2858, to cause distribution of VPN routing information to the PE routers 18 that are in the VPN. Accordingly, each such PE router 18 is a MP-BGP network device that runs MP-BGP.” Examiner’s Note: Examiner submits that based on the way the claim is written, if the reference teaches the at least one of the following, it renders obvious the encapsulation information and attribute.)
path information of a designated virtual network (¶ 0023, “Before data associated with a BGP-VPN application can traverse the PSN 14 through the ESP 22, the PE routers 18 need to learn the route belonging to the given VPN. In one embodiment, the service provider uses the Multi-protocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP), described in RFC 2858, to cause distribution of VPN routing information to the PE routers 18 that are in the VPN. Accordingly, each such PE router 18 is a MP-BGP network device that runs MP-BGP.”), and
the tunnel encapsulation information being configured to instruct the ingress node to map, to a path of the designated virtual network (¶ 0023, “Before data associated with a BGP-VPN application can traverse the PSN 14 through the ESP 22, the PE routers 18 need to learn the route belonging to the given VPN. In one embodiment, the service provider uses the Multi-protocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP), described in RFC 2858, to cause distribution of VPN routing information to the PE routers 18 that are in the VPN. Accordingly, each such PE router 18 is a MP-BGP network device that runs MP-BGP.”)
Ould-Brahim fails to teach a designated flow classification feature value and traffic which is sent to the egress node and has the designated flow classification feature value.
Bansal teaches a designated flow classification feature value and traffic which is sent to the egress node and has the designated flow classification feature value. (¶ 0036, “ Service chain information provided by SDN controller 19 may specify any combination and ordering of value-added services provided by service nodes 10, traffic engineering information (e.g., labels or next hops) for tunneling or otherwise transporting (e.g., MPLS or IP tunnels) packet flows along service paths, rate limits, Type Of Service (TOS) markings or packet classifiers that specify criteria for matching packet flows to a particular service chain 28A, 28B.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Bansal with the invention of Ould-Brahim in order to better differentiate between flows in the system of Bansal.
With respect to Claim 2, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches the method according to claim 1, Ould-Brahim teaches wherein the flow classification feature value comprises at least one of the following: a Differentiated Services (DS) field of an Internet Protocol (IP) header, a source IP address, a destination IP address, a source port number, a destination port number, and a protocol number of the IP header, and a source Media Access Control (MAC), a destination MAC address, a Virtual Local Area Network Identity Document (VLAN ID), and a Priority Code Point (PCP) of an Ethernet frame header (¶ 0045, “For example, when a PE router receives a BGP update message and determines that the Next_Hop field contains a cookie encoded in an IPv4 format (4 octets)--by reading the SAFI field--the receiving PE router can map the cookie to an available PBT tunnel connected to the sending PE router.)
With respect to Claim 3, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches the method according to claim 2, However, Ould-Brahim fails to teach wherein the DS field of the IP header comprises at least one of the following: a Type of Service (TOS) field of an Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) header, and a Traffic Class (TC) field of an Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) header.
Bansal teaches wherein the DS field of the IP header comprises at least one of the following: a Type of Service (TOS) field of an Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) header, and a Traffic Class (TC) field of an Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) header (¶ 0036, “service chain information provided by SDN controller 19 may specify any combination and ordering of value-added services provided by service nodes 10, traffic engineering information (e.g., labels or next hops) for tunneling or otherwise transporting (e.g., MPLS or IP tunnels) packet flows along service paths, rate limits, Type Of Service (TOS) markings or packet classifiers that specify criteria for matching packet flows to a particular service chain 28A, 28B.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Bansal with the invention of Ould-Brahim in order to better differentiate between flows in the system of Bansal.
With respect to Claim 4, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches the method according to claim 1, Ould-Brahium fails to teach wherein the path information of the designated virtual network comprises at least one of the following: a path to a designated destination node in a designated Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) topology, a path to a designated destination node in a designated Flexible Algorithm (Flex-algo) plane, a path to a designated destination node in a designated virtual topology corresponding to a designated Slice Identifier (ID), and a path to a designated Segment Identifier (SID)
Bansal teaches wherein the path information of the designated virtual network comprises at least one of the following: a path to a designated destination node in a designated Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) topology, a path to a designated destination node in a designated Flexible Algorithm (Flex-algo) plane, a path to a designated destination node in a designated virtual topology corresponding to a designated Slice Identifier (ID), and a path to a designated Segment Identifier (SID) (¶ 0056, “PE routers 108 may execute one or more interior gateway protocols, such as Open Shortest Path First (OSPF), Routing Information Protocol (RIP), Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS), Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (IGRP), Enhanced IGRP (EIGRP), and Interior Border Gateway Protocol (iBGP). PE routers 108 are logically located at the “edge” of respective networks 106 and may extend attachment circuits to customer edge (CE) device(s) or customer device(s) to provide services to one or more customers.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Bansal with the invention of Ould-Brahim in order to better differentiate between flows in the system of Bansal.
With respect to Claims 5-8 and 18-21, the claims are the message receiving method corresponding to the message sending method of claims 1-4 and 13-17 and are rejected accordingly.
With respect to claim 9, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein after receiving, by the ingress node, the BGP update message sent by the egress node to obtain the routing reachability information, the method further comprises:creating, by the ingress node, a routing entry or a label entry corresponding to the ingress node according to the obtained routing reachability information, wherein the routing entry or the label entry comprises: the tunnel encapsulation attribute (¶ 0032-0037, “When a PBT tunnel--here, a representative example of an Ethernet--is visible to BGP-VPN applications, the MP-BGP executing at the PE routers 18 needs to identify the PBT tunnel and associate that PBT tunnel with a set of VPN routing information (corresponding to a given VPN).” and “(b) a VPN label (i.e., a service demultiplexor);”)
With respect to claim 10, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein after creating, by the ingress node, the routing entry or the label entry corresponding to the ingress node according to the obtained routing reachability information, the method further comprises:in a case of determining that the traffic is matched with the routing entry or the label entry, obtaining, by an ingress node, a flow classification feature of the traffic, and forwarding the traffic on the path information of the designated virtual network corresponding to the flow classification feature attribute (¶ 0032-0037, “When a PBT tunnel--here, a representative example of an Ethernet--is visible to BGP-VPN applications, the MP-BGP executing at the PE routers 18 needs to identify the PBT tunnel and associate that PBT tunnel with a set of VPN routing information (corresponding to a given VPN).” and “(b) a VPN label (i.e., a service demultiplexor);”)
With respect to Claims 11, the claims are the message receiving method corresponding to the message sending method of claim 1, and are rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 13, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a program, wherein when running, the program is configured to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (¶ 0058, “Program code (or software) of the present invention may be embodied as computer-executable instructions on or in one or more articles of manufacture, or in or on computer-readable medium. A computer, computing system, or computer system, as used herein, is any programmable machine or device that inputs, processes, and outputs instructions, commands, or data. In general, any standard or proprietary, programming or interpretive language can be used to produce the computer-executable instructions. Examples of such languages include C, C++, Pascal, JAVA, BASIC, Visual Basic, and Visual C++.”)
With respect to Claim 14, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform the method as claimed in claim 1 (¶ 0058, “Program code (or software) of the present invention may be embodied as computer-executable instructions on or in one or more articles of manufacture, or in or on computer-readable medium. A computer, computing system, or computer system, as used herein, is any programmable machine or device that inputs, processes, and outputs instructions, commands, or data. In general, any standard or proprietary, programming or interpretive language can be used to produce the computer-executable instructions. Examples of such languages include C, C++, Pascal, JAVA, BASIC, Visual Basic, and Visual C++.”)
With respect to Claim 15, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform the method as claimed in claim 2. (¶ 0058, “Program code (or software) of the present invention may be embodied as computer-executable instructions on or in one or more articles of manufacture, or in or on computer-readable medium. A computer, computing system, or computer system, as used herein, is any programmable machine or device that inputs, processes, and outputs instructions, commands, or data. In general, any standard or proprietary, programming or interpretive language can be used to produce the computer-executable instructions. Examples of such languages include C, C++, Pascal, JAVA, BASIC, Visual Basic, and Visual C++.”)
With respect to 16, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform the method as claimed in claim 3. (¶ 0058, “Program code (or software) of the present invention may be embodied as computer-executable instructions on or in one or more articles of manufacture, or in or on computer-readable medium. A computer, computing system, or computer system, as used herein, is any programmable machine or device that inputs, processes, and outputs instructions, commands, or data. In general, any standard or proprietary, programming or interpretive language can be used to produce the computer-executable instructions. Examples of such languages include C, C++, Pascal, JAVA, BASIC, Visual Basic, and Visual C++.”)
With respect to 17, Ould-Brahim in view of Bansal teaches an electronic device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform the method as claimed in claim 4. (¶ 0058, “Program code (or software) of the present invention may be embodied as computer-executable instructions on or in one or more articles of manufacture, or in or on computer-readable medium. A computer, computing system, or computer system, as used herein, is any programmable machine or device that inputs, processes, and outputs instructions, commands, or data. In general, any standard or proprietary, programming or interpretive language can be used to produce the computer-executable instructions. Examples of such languages include C, C++, Pascal, JAVA, BASIC, Visual Basic, and Visual C++.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446