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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim status in the amendment received on 1/14/2026:
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended.
New claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims have been considered and the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection
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 8-15 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.
As to claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the AS patch attribute”, in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
As to the claim(s) that are dependent on claim(s) 8, the dependent claim(s) are also rejected under 112(b) for the same reason of their base claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liljenstolpe et al (Pub. No.: US 20160218964 A1) in view of Alaettinoglu et al. (Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), 1999, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc2622.txt.pdf).
As to claim 1, Liljenstolpe teaches a method in a network device for processing a network route according to a routing policy, the method comprising:
receiving the network route (fig. 6, 615); executing at least one policy directive in the routing policy to derive a route evaluation for the network route, including: invoking a function at a point of application in the policy directive, wherein program execution transfers from executing the policy directive to executing program instructions in the function (fig. 6, 660, i.e. the main function), wherein the function invokes a helper function associated with an attribute of the network route (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively);
invoking, at a point of invocation in the function, the helper function associated with the attribute of the network route to process the attribute, wherein program execution transfers from executing the program instructions in the function to executing program instructions in the helper function (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively);
performing one or more operations on the attribute in accordance with the program instructions in the helper function (fig. 6, 672 or 684);
returning program execution to the function upon completing execution of the helper function (fig. 7, 745); and
returning program execution to a point in the routing policy following the point of application upon completing execution of the function (fig. 7, 750); and
performing an action on the network route based on the route evaluation, wherein the route evaluation is produced either in the helper function or in the function (fig. 7, 750).
Liljenstolpe does not explicitly teach object-oriented syntax for the helper function.
However, in the same field of endeavor (compute networks) Alaettinoglu teaches function invokes a helper function associated with an attribute of the network route using a syntax that references the attribute as a data object and the helper function as a method defined on the data object (pg. 43, “…The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is as follows: x.method(arguments) …”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate object-oriented syntax for the helper function (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to improve code readability and reuse.
As to claim 3, Liljenstolpe teaches receiving a routing policy specification (paragraph [0032]); and compiling the routing policy specification to produce the routing policy for execution by the network device (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 4, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the routing policy specification includes source code for the function and source code for the helper function (fig. 6).
As to claim 5, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the routing policy specification is entered by a user at a command line interface (paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 6, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the routing policy specification is in a file that is downloaded to the network device (paragraph [0032]).
As to claim 7, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the attribute is an autonomous system (AS) path attribute of the network route (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 8, Liljenstolpe teaches a method in a network device for processing network routes, the method comprising: receiving a network route comprising path attribute (fig. 6, 615);
executing at least one policy directive in a routing policy to derive a route evaluation for the network route, including: invoking a function at a point of application in the policy directive, wherein program execution transfers from executing the policy directive to executing program instructions in the function (fig. 6, 660, i.e. the main function);
invoking, at a point of invocation in the function, a helper function associated with the attribute of the network route (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively), wherein program execution transfers from executing the program instructions in the function to executing program instructions in the helper function (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively), wherein the program instructions in the helper function include operations on the attribute of the network route (fig. 6, 672 or 684);
returning program execution to the function upon completing execution of the helper function (fig. 7, 745); and
returning program execution to a point in the routing policy following the point of application upon completing execution of the function (fig. 7, 750); and
performing an action on the network route based on the route evaluation, wherein the route evaluation is produced either in the helper function or in the function (fig. 7, 750).
Liljenstolpe does not explicitly teach operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route.
However, in the same field of endeavor (compute networks) Alaettinoglu teaches receiving a network route comprising an AS (autonomous system) path attribute (pg. 44, “…the BGP as_path rp-attribute …”);
invoking, at a point of invocation in the function, a helper function associated with the AS patch attribute of the network route, wherein program execution transfers from executing the program instructions in the function to executing program instructions in the helper function, wherein the program instructions in the helper function include operations that modify a set of AS numbers in the AS path attribute of the network route (pg. 44, “…To influence the route selection, the BGP as_path rp-attribute can be
made longer by prepending AS numbers to it as follows:
aspath.prepend(AS1);
aspath.prepend(AS1, AS1, AS1); …”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection.
As to claim 16, Liljenstolpe teaches a network device comprising:
one or more computer processors (fig. 4, 410); and
a computer-readable storage device comprising instructions that control the one or more computer processors to: receive a routing policy specification comprising:
at least a first policy directive that specifies a network route, the first policy directive comprising a function call to a first function (fig. 6, 615);
source code for the first function comprising a function call to a second function to evaluate and/or modify an attribute of the network route, wherein the second function is a helper function associated with the attribute, wherein the function call uses a syntax (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a second function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively);
and source code for the second function comprising instructions to evaluate and/or modify the attribute (fig. 6, 670 or 680); and
evaluate and/or modify a network route according to the first policy directive, including invoking the first function followed by invoking the second function (fig. 6, 670 or 680); and
perform an action on the network route based on a route evaluation that is produced in the first function or the second function (fig. 7, 750).
Liljenstolpe does not explicitly teach object-oriented syntax for the helper function.
However, in the same field of endeavor (compute networks) Alaettinoglu teaches second function is a helper function associated with the attribute, wherein the function call uses a syntax that references the attribute as a data object and the second function as a method defined on the data object (pg. 43, “…The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is as follows: x.method(arguments) …”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate object-oriented syntax for the helper function (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to improve code readability and reuse.
As to claim 17, Alaettinoglu further teaches wherein the function call to the second function is a dot operation expressed as: attr.function ([arg [, arg]]) (pg. 43, “…x.method(arguments) …”);
where attr is a reference to the attribute associated with the network route, function is a reference to the second function, and[arg [, arg]]represents one or more arguments to the second function (pg. 43, “…The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is as follows: x.method(arguments) …”). The limitations of claim 17 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 16 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 16, applies here as well.
As to claim 18, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein evaluating and/or modifying network routes according to the routing policy specification includes compiling the routing policy specification to produce a routing policy that is executable by the network device and evaluating and/or modifying the network routes (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 19, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the routing policy specification is expressed in human-readable form, the routing policy is an executable representation of the route policy specification and is not in human-readable form (paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 20, Liljenstolpe teaches wherein the attribute is an autonomous system (AS) path attribute of the network route (paragraph [0033]).
As to claim 21, Alaettinoglu further teaches wherein the point of invocation of the helper function includes one or more arguments to the helper function, wherein the one or more arguments are used by the helper function (pg. 43, “…The syntax of a policy action or a filter using an rp-attribute x is as follows: x.method(arguments) …”). The limitations of claim 21 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 1 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 1, applies here as well.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liljenstolpe et al (Pub. No.: US 20160218964 A1) in view of Alaettinoglu et al. (Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), 1999, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc2622.txt.pdf) and further in view of Mehta et al. (Pub. No.: US 20080112418 A1).
As to claim 9, Liljenstolpe teaches the program instructions in the helper function include operations (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively).
Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu does not explicitly teach replacing AS numbers.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Mehta teaches program instructions in the helper function include operations that replace one or more AS numbers in the set of AS numbers of the AS path attribute with a replacement AS number (paragraph [0018], “identifying whether an autonomous system (AS) number included in an AS path of a message matches a set of AS numbers that may be problematic. The identified AS number can be substituted with a local AS number”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu and further in view of Mehta, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate replacing AS numbers (taught by Mehta) with operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection and in order to replace problematic AS numbers.
As to claim 10, Liljenstolpe teaches the program instructions in the helper function include operations (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively).
Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu does not explicitly teach replacing AS numbers.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Mehta teaches program instructions in the helper function include operations that replace each AS number in the set of AS numbers of the AP path attribute that falls within a range of AS numbers with a replacement AS number (paragraph [0018], “identifying whether an autonomous system (AS) number included in an AS path of a message matches a set of AS numbers that may be problematic. The identified AS number can be substituted with a local AS number”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu and further in view of Mehta, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate replacing AS numbers (taught by Mehta) with operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection and in order to replace problematic AS numbers.
As to claim 11, Liljenstolpe teaches the program instructions in the helper function include operations (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively).
Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu does not explicitly teach replacing AS numbers of specific type.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Mehta teaches program instructions in the helper function include operations that replace each AS number of a specified type in the set of AS numbers of the AP path attribute with a replacement AS number (paragraph [0018], “identifying whether an autonomous system (AS) number included in an AS path of a message matches a set of AS numbers that may be problematic. The identified AS number can be substituted with a local AS number”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu and further in view of Mehta, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate replacing AS numbers of specific type (taught by Mehta) with operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection and in order to replace problematic AS numbers.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liljenstolpe et al (Pub. No.: US 20160218964 A1) in view of Alaettinoglu et al. (Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL), 1999, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc2622.txt.pdf) and further in view of Ward et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070019673 A1).
As to claim 12, Liljenstolpe teaches the program instructions in the helper function include operations (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively).
Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu does not explicitly teach removing AS numbers.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Ward teaches program instructions in the helper function removes a subset of AS numbers from the set of AS numbers of the AP path attribute (paragraph [0050], “…B examines the AS_PATH, and removes all the AS numbers that are padded 2 octet AS numbers …”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu and further in view of Ward, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate removing AS numbers (taught by Ward) with operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection and in order to provide better compatibility and loop-free routing.
As to claim 13, Ward further teaches wherein the subset of AS numbers is expressed as a range of AS numbers (paragraph [0050], “…all of the 4-octet AS numbers…”). The limitations of claim 13 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 12 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 12, applies here as well.
As to claim 14, Ward further teaches wherein the subset of AS numbers are AS numbers of a specific type (paragraph [0050], “…4-octet AS numbers…”). The limitations of claim 14 are rejected in view of the analysis of claim 12 above, and the rationale to combine, as discussed in claim 12, applies here as well.
As to claim 15, Liljenstolpe teaches the program instructions in the helper function include operations (fig. 6, “deny” or “external” teaches a helper function for processing an associated attribute, 672, 684, respectively).
Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu does not explicitly teach normalizing AS numbers.
However, in the same field of endeavor (computer networks) Ward teaches program instructions in the helper function include operations that normalize the set of AS numbers to a specified length, including truncating the set of AS numbers or extending the set of AS numbers of the AP path attribute (paragraph [0064], “…AS Path attributes are prepended with pad values to fully code the AS Path information…”).
Based on Liljenstolpe in view of Alaettinoglu and further in view of Ward, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate normalizing AS numbers (taught by Ward) with operations that modify a set of AS numbers in a AS path attribute of the network route (taught by Alaettinoglu) with function call (as taught by Liljenstolpe) in order to influence the route selection and in order to provide better compatibility and loop-free routing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULKADER M ALRIYASHI whose telephone number is (313)446-6551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM - 5PM Alt, Friday, EST.
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, JOON HWANG can be reached at (571)272-4036. 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.
/Abdulkader M Alriyashi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447 3/7/2026