DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
99The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 25 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. (US Pub. 2024/0334275) in view of Pritzkau et al.(US Pub. 2020/0028861).
Regarding claim 1, Gundavelli et al. discloses “a method of operating a wireless access point, comprising:” by describing operation of a first access point serving a wireless client and handover of the client to a second access point (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61, 68).
Gundavelli further discloses “wirelessly transmitting signals to an end-host;” by describing wireless communication between the first access point and the client prior to handover (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “determining whether the end-host has roamed from the wireless access point to an additional wireless access point;” by describing handover of the client from the first access point to the second access point and determining that the client has associated with the second access point (Gundavelli ¶¶60–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “prior to determining that the end-host has roamed from the wireless access point to the additional wireless access point, conveying host information associated with the end-host to the additional wireless access point,” by describing transfer of client/context information between the access points in connection with the handover (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “subsequent to determining that the end-host has roamed from the wireless access point to the additional wireless access point, forwarding a data packet from the wireless access point to the additional wireless access point via a tunnel having a first end connected to the wireless access point and a second end connected to the additional wireless access point.” Gundavelli teaches that, after the client associates with the new access point, packets buffered at the source access point are sent to the new access point via a pre-existing tunnel connecting the two access points or via a newly established tunnel toward the new access point (Gundavelli ¶61). Gundavelli further teaches that packets in the first buffer are encapsulated and transmitted via a tunnel between the first access point and the second access point (Gundavelli ¶68).
Gundavelli does not expressly disclose “wherein the host information includes a media access control (MAC) address of the end-host.”
Pritzkau et al. teaches that host/device information can include a MAC address identifying the device. In particular, Pritzkau ¶18 teaches associating device information with a device MAC address and hostname.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the MAC address of the end-host in the host information conveyed between the access points of Gundavelli, as taught by Pritzkau, because the MAC address is a known device identifier that enables the transferred host information to be identified and associated with the particular end-host.
Regarding claim 18, Gundavelli discloses “an access point comprising:” an access point configured to provide wireless connectivity to a client and participate in handover of the client between access points (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “wireless circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with an end-host and a neighboring access point;” by describing wireless communication with the client and communication between access points in connection with handover and forwarding of client traffic (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61, 68).
Gundavelli further discloses “memory circuitry configured to store host association information associated with the end-host;” by describing storage/buffering of information associated with the client during handover (Gundavelli ¶¶61, 68).
Gundavelli further discloses “processing circuitry configured to determine whether the end-host has roamed from the access point to the neighboring access point;” by describing handover of the client and determining that the client has associated with the second access point (Gundavelli ¶¶60–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “subsequent to determining that the end-host has roamed from the access point to the neighboring access point, temporarily forward data packets intended for the end-host to the neighboring access point via a tunnel having a first end connected to the access point and a second end connected to the neighboring access point.” Gundavelli teaches that, after the client associates with the new access point, packets buffered at the source access point are sent to the new access point via a pre-existing tunnel connecting the two access points or via a newly established tunnel (Gundavelli ¶61), and further teaches that the buffered packets are encapsulated and transmitted via a tunnel between the first access point and the second access point (Gundavelli ¶68).
Gundavelli does not expressly disclose “wherein the host association information includes a media access control (MAC) address of the end-host.”
Pritzkau teaches that host/device information can include a MAC address identifying the device (Pritzkau ¶18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the MAC address of the end-host in the host association information stored by the access point of Gundavelli, as taught by Pritzkau, because the MAC address is a known device identifier that enables the stored host association information to be identified and associated with the particular end-host.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. in view of Pritzkau et al., and further in view of Samar et al. (US Pub. 2009/0116445).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “receiving a data packet from an access layer switch connected to the wireless access point; and conveying the data packet received from the access layer switch to the end-host.”
Samar teaches a radio access network in which network-side access devices receive packets from the network infrastructure and convey the packets to an access terminal, including an IP layer for transmitting information between the network-side access device and access terminal (Samar ¶¶19–22, 25, 39–40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Samar's known access-network packet-delivery arrangement in Gundavelli's wireless access point system to provide a network path for receiving packets from the access network and conveying the received packets to the wireless end-host.
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. in view of Pritzkau et al., and further in view of RFC 8365 (A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using EVPN, March 2018).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “wherein the host information further comprises a name of the access layer switch.” RFC 8365 further teaches identification of network nodes participating in the EVPN overlay. It would have been obvious to include the name of the access layer switch in the host information to identify the network node associated with the end-host and facilitate maintenance of the end-host's network attachment information.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “wherein the host information further comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the access layer switch.” RFC 8365 further teaches use of IP addresses identifying network nodes and tunnel endpoints in an EVPN overlay. It would have been obvious to include the IP address of the access layer switch in the host information to identify the network endpoint associated with the end-host and facilitate forwarding of traffic associated with the end-host.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “starting a configurable timer in response to an EVPN update of the end-host.” RFC 8365 further teaches EVPN-based maintenance and updating of host/network state. It would have been obvious to start a configurable timer in response to an EVPN update to control the duration for which temporary mobility state is maintained after the network has learned the updated location of the end-host.
Regarding claim 12, Gundavelli teaches forwarding packets through a tunnel between the first and second access points (Gundavelli ¶¶61, 68), but does not expressly disclose “wherein the tunnel comprises one of a Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) tunnel, a Network Virtualization using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE) tunnel, a Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) tunnel, or a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) tunnel.” RFC 8365 teaches EVPN overlay networks employing known network virtualization encapsulations, including VXLAN, NVGRE, and MPLS-based encapsulations. It would have been obvious to implement Gundavelli's AP-to-AP tunnel using one of the known standardized tunnel encapsulations taught by RFC 8365 to provide packet transport between the access points. Gundavelli's AP-to-AP tunnel is expressly described as carrying encapsulated packets between the APs.
Claims 7–9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. in view of Pritzkau et al., and further in view of RFC 7432 (BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN, February 2015).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “starting a configurable timer upon detecting the media access control (MAC) address of the end-host.” RFC 7432, Section 15, teaches EVPN MAC mobility processing responsive to learning/detecting the MAC address of an end-host and maintaining mobility state associated with the MAC address. It would have been obvious to start a configurable timer upon detection of the end-host's MAC address to control the duration of temporary mobility state associated with the end-host.
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not expressly disclose “wherein the configurable timer has a duration between 100 milliseconds and 4000 milliseconds.” Selection of the duration of the configurable timer would have been an obvious optimization of a result-effective parameter, because the duration controls how long the temporary mobility state is maintained, and one of ordinary skill would have selected a suitable duration to balance prompt expiration of stale state against premature expiration while mobility processing remains in progress.
Regarding claim 9, Gundavelli teaches use of a temporary tunnel between the first and second access points during handover (Gundavelli ¶¶61, 68), but the combination does not expressly disclose “deactivating the tunnel in response to expiration of the configurable timer.” RFC 7432, Section 15, teaches removal/withdrawal of stale MAC mobility information following movement of the end-host. It would have been obvious to deactivate Gundavelli's temporary handover tunnel upon expiration of the configurable timer because expiration of the timer indicates that the temporary mobility interval has ended, after which continued maintenance of the temporary forwarding path is unnecessary.
Regarding claim 11, Gundavelli and Pritzkau do not expressly disclose “removing the media access control (MAC) address of the end-host from a host association table.” RFC 7432, Section 15, teaches that when a MAC address moves to a new Ethernet segment, updated MAC/IP Advertisement information identifying the new attachment causes withdrawal of the previous MAC reachability information. It would have been obvious to remove the end-host's MAC address from the former host association information upon learning its new attachment location to prevent stale forwarding information from continuing to associate the end-host with its former attachment point.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gundavelli and Pritzkau does not expressly disclose “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to remove the media access control (MAC) address of the end-host from the host association information in response to an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) update of the end-host.”
RFC 7432 teaches EVPN MAC mobility procedures in which movement of an end-host results in an updated MAC/IP Advertisement route identifying the end-host's new attachment, and receipt of the updated route causes withdrawal of the previously advertised MAC reachability information associated with the end-host's former attachment (RFC 7432 §15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to remove the end-host's MAC address from Gundavelli's host association information in response to the EVPN update taught by RFC 7432 because the update indicates that the end-host has moved to a new attachment point, such that removal of the stale MAC association would prevent the former access point from continuing to maintain outdated association information for the end-host.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. in view of RFC 7432.
Regarding claim 13, Gundavelli discloses “a method of operating a wireless network device, comprising:” by describing operation of a first access point serving a wireless client and handover of the client to a second access point (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61, 68).
Gundavelli further discloses “wirelessly transmitting data packets to an end-host;” by describing wireless communication and transmission of client traffic through the first access point prior to handover (Gundavelli ¶¶58–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “determining whether the end-host has roamed from a first wireless coverage area of the wireless network device to a second wireless coverage area of an additional wireless network device;” by describing handover of the client from the first access point to the second access point and determining that the client has associated with the second access point (Gundavelli ¶¶60–61).
Gundavelli further discloses “subsequent to determining that the end-host has roamed from the first wireless coverage area to the second wireless coverage area, temporarily forwarding additional data packets intended for the end-host to the additional wireless network device via a tunnel having a first end connected to the wireless network device and a second end connected to the additional wireless network device;” by teaching that, after the client associates with the new access point, packets buffered at the source access point are sent to the new access point via a pre-existing tunnel connecting the two access points or via a newly established tunnel (Gundavelli ¶61). Gundavelli further teaches that the buffered packets are encapsulated and transmitted via a tunnel between the first access point and the second access point (Gundavelli ¶68).
Gundavelli does not disclose “closing the tunnel in response to an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) update of the end-host occurring at an aggregation switch associated with the wireless network device.”
RFC 7432, Section 15, teaches EVPN MAC mobility procedures responsive to movement of an end-host from one Ethernet segment to another. Specifically, when a PE receives an updated MAC/IP Advertisement route for a MAC address identifying a different Ethernet segment and having a higher MAC Mobility sequence number, the PE withdraws its previously advertised MAC/IP Advertisement route. Section 15 further teaches that receipt of a MAC/IP Advertisement route carrying the MAC Mobility extended community from another PE serves as a trigger for withdrawal of the prior advertisement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to close Gundavelli's temporary tunnel in response to the EVPN MAC mobility update taught by RFC 7432 because the EVPN update indicates that the end-host has moved to its new network attachment and triggers withdrawal of forwarding information associated with its previous attachment, such that the temporary tunnel used to forward packets during handover is no longer needed.
Regarding claim 15, Gundavelli discloses temporary tunneling during handoff (Gundavelli ¶¶61, 68) but does not disclose “subsequent to determining that the end-host has roamed from the first wireless coverage area to the second wireless coverage area, starting a configurable timer; and closing the tunnel in response to the configurable timer expiring.” RFC 7432 discloses that a PE detecting a MAC mobility event via local learning starts an M-second timer and expressly requires that the value of M be configurable (RFC 7432 §15.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the configurable mobility timer of RFC 7432 to Gundavelli's temporary handoff tunnel and close the tunnel upon expiration of the timer because the timer provides a known mechanism for controlling the duration of state maintained in response to a detected mobility event, thereby preventing the temporary forwarding tunnel from being maintained longer than necessary.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gundavelli and RFC 7432 does not expressly disclose “wherein the configurable timer has a duration between 100 milliseconds and 4000 milliseconds.” RFC 7432 expressly teaches that the mobility timer is configurable (RFC 7432 §15.1). The particular duration of the configurable timer would have been a result-effective parameter because the timer duration directly determines how long temporary mobility state, including the temporary forwarding tunnel, remains active following a mobility event. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization to select a timer duration within the claimed range of 100 milliseconds to 4000 milliseconds to provide sufficient time for handoff-related forwarding while avoiding unnecessary maintenance of the temporary tunnel after mobility processing is completed.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights