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 .
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-25 are presented for examination.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 14 and 17
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10-13, 15-16, 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (hereafter, “Sun”), US 2014/0071834 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches a method, comprising:
identifying, by a transit node associated with a label switched path (LSP), a performance issue of the transit node (i.e., the transmit node may determine that a fault occurs on the link between the transmit node and the downstream node of the transit node, page 8 paragraph [0088]);
generating, by the transit node and based on identifying the performance issue, a first that is a first copy of a message associated with the performance issue (i.e., the upstream node of the fault point may define a new type of LDP message, such as an LDP fault information transfer message, where the first location information of the fault point is carried in the LDP fault information transfer message and sent to the ingress node, page 5 paragraph [0051]);
transmitting, by the transit node, and to an ingress node associated with the LSP, the first message to allow the ingress node to perform one or more actions associated with the LSP (i.e., the transit node sends the first location information of the fault point to the ingress node of the LDP LSP according to a local label forwarding entry corresponding to the faulty LDP LSP, page 9 paragraph [0093]), wherein the one or more action include: causing, based on transmitting the first message, initiation of a termination operation associated with the LSP (i.e., after detecting the fault, upstream nodes of a fault point and downstream nodes of the fault points will initiate an LDP LSP tearing process directed to the ingress node, page 1 paragraph [0005]).
Sun does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the transmit node and to another ingress node associated with another LSP a second message to the other ingress node, wherein the second message is a second copy of the message; and causing, based on transmitting the second message, the other ingress node to perform one or more other actions associated with the other LSP.
Singh teaches transmitting, by the transmit node and to another ingress node associated with another LSP a second message to the other ingress node, wherein the second message is a second copy of the message (i.e., notify ingress RSVP nodes for nay transit node maintenance activity, page 9 paragraph ‘0090]); and causing, based on transmitting the second message, the other ingress node to perform one or more other actions associated with the other LSP (i.e., indicating to the ingress nodes that a transit node is under maintenance and that the ingress nodes need to divert the traffic to one or more other available LSP(s), page 4 paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Sung to transmit, by the transmit node and to another ingress node associated with another LSP a second message to the other ingress node, wherein the second message is a second copy of the message; and cause, based on transmitting the second message, the other ingress node to perform one or more other actions associated with the other LSP, as taught by Singh for the reason Singh expressly taught (i.e., divert traffic smoothly in make-before-break fashion, page 9 paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the message allows: the ingress node to perform an assessment operation associated with the LSP (i.e., the ingress node…deletes the IP address of the interface traversed by the LDP LSP, deletes SDP enabling, page 4 paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, based on transmitting the message, one or more messages associated with an assessment operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., address withdraw message, label mapping message, or label abort request message, page 5 paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, based on transmitting the message, one or more messages associated with a termination operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., label abort request message, page 5 paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the second message allows: the other ingress node to perform an assessment operation associated with the other LSP.
Singh teaches wherein transmitting the second message allows: the other ingress node to perform an assessment operation associated with the other LSP (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Sun and Singh to transmit the second message allowing the other ingress node to perform an assessment operation associated with the other LSP, as taught by Singh. One would be motivated to do to enable the ingress nodes to divert traffic smoothly (i.e., Singh, page 9 paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites limitation that is similar to claim 7, same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun does not explicitly teach further comprising: receiving, based on transmitting the second message, one or more messages associated with another termination operation that is associated with the other LSP.
Singh teaches receiving, based on transmitting the second message, one or more messages associated with another termination operation that is associated with the other LSP (Singh, in page 9 paragraph [0090], further discloses notify ingress RSVP nodes for any transmit node maintenance activity. Singh, in page 8 paragraph [0082], also discloses after receiving RSVP-overload path error message, it marks the LSP as unusable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of sun to receive, based on transmitting the second message, one or more messages associated with another termination operation that is associated with the other LSP, as taught by Singh. One would be motivated to do to enable the ingress nodes to divert traffic smoothly (i.e., Singh, page 9 paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 11, Sun teaches an ingress node associated with a label switched path (LSP) (i.e., ingress node device, Fig. 7), comprising:
one or more memories (i.e., a memory 72, page 14 paragraph [0047]); and
one or more processors (i.e., at least one processor 71, page 14 paragraph [0147]) to:
receive, from a transit node associated with the LSP, a message associated with a performance issue of the transit node (i.e., receive an LDP fault information transfer message sent by the upstream node of the fault point, page 13 paragraph [00131] and [0138]);
cause, based on the first message, initiation of a termination operation associated with the LSP (i.e., after detecting the fault, upstream nodes of a fault point and downstream nodes of the fault point will initiate an LDO LSP tearing process directed to the ingress node, page 1 paragraph [0005]);
perform, based on the message, one or more actions associated with the LSP (i.e., generate LDP LSP fault alarm information that carries the first location information of the fault point, page 14 paragraph [0042] and page 11 paragraph [0114]).
Sun does not explicitly teach wherein a second message that is a copy of the message is sent to another ingress node that is associated another LSP.
Singh teaches wherein a second message that is a copy of the message is sent to another ingress node that is associated another LSP (i.e., i.e., notify ingress RSVP nodes for any transit node maintenance activity, page 9 paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Sun to send a second message that is a copy of the message to another ingress node that is associated another LSP, as taught by Singh. One would be motivated to do to enable the ingress nodes to divert traffic smoothly (i.e., Singh, page 9 paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 12, Sun teaches the ingress node of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions associated with the LSP, are to: perform, based on the message, an assessment operation associated with the LSP (i.e., address withdraw message, label mapping message, or label abort request message, page 5 paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Sun teaches the ingress node of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions associated with the LSP, are to: transmit, based on the message, one or more messages associated with an assessment operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., address withdraw message, label mapping message, or label abort request message, page 5 paragraph [0052]), wherein the one or more messages are transmitted, via the LSP, to the transit node (i.e., page 5 paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Sun teaches the ingress node of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to perform the one or more actions associated with the LSP, are to: send one or more messages associated with a termination operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., address withdraw message, label mapping message, or label abort request message, page 5 paragraph [0052]), wherein the one or more messages are to propagate, via the LSP, to the transit node (i.e., page 5 paragraph page 5 paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a transit node associated with a label switched path (LSP), for performing a method claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
In addition, Sun discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a transit node associated with a label switched path (LSP) (i.e., the memory 93 is configured to store a program to be executed by the processor, fig. 9 and page 16 paragraph [0175]).
Regarding claim 18, Sun teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more action includes an assessment operation that is an LSP self-ping assessment operation or an LSP ping assessment operation (i.e., Keepalive packet is sent between the ingress node and the downstream node, page 4 paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Sun teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the transit node to: receive, based on transmitting the message, one or more messages associated with an assessment operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., page 5 paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Sun teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the transit node to: receive, based on transmitting the message, one or more messages associated with a termination operation that is associated with the LSP (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Sun teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more actions or the one or more other actions include at least one of: an LSP self-ping operation, an LSP ping operation, or another assessment operation configured to assess an LSP status (i.e., page 4 paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 22, Sun teaches the method of claim 1.
Sun does not explicitly teach wherein the message is in an extended format of a resource reservation protocol (RSVP) path error message to support an error specification object.
Singh teaches wherein the message is in an extended format of a resource reservation protocol (RSVP) path error message to support an error specification object (i.e., page 8 paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Sun to implement message in an extended format of a resource reservation protocol (RSVP) path error message to support an error specification object, as taught by Singh because it was conventionally employed in the art for error communicating.
.
Regarding claims 23-24, those claims limitation that is similar to claim 22, same rationale of rejection is applied.
3. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Singh as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (hereafter, “Tanaka”), US 2014/0347979 A1.
Regarding claim 25, Sun teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 24.
The combination of teachings of Sun and Singh does not explicitly teach wherein the message includes instructions to perform at least one of the one or more actions or the one or more other actions.
Tanaka teaches wherein the message includes instructions to perform at least one of the one or more actions or the one or more other actions (i.e., page 2 paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of teachings of Sun and Singh to include instructions in the message to perform at least one of the one or more actions or the one or more other actions, as taught by Tanaka. One would be motivated to do so to reduce the load borne to generate failure notification (Tanaka, page 2 paragraph [0026]).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-16, and 18-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached on (571)272-7493. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441