ETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application filed on 10/20/2023. Claims 17-32 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Priority
The present application is a continuation of application 17/361,292 filed on 6/28/2021, which is a continuation of application 16/656,555 filed on 10/17/2019, which is a continuation of application 15/624,532 filed on 6/15/2017, which claims priority from provisional application 62/457,816 filed on 2/11/2017.
Application 15/624,532 is a continuation-in-part of the U.S. application 14/321,818 filed on 7/2/2014. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 14/321,818, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Accordingly, claims 17-32 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application 14/321,818.
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.
Claims 17, 19-20, 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 2014/0198794, hereinafter Mehta) in view of Saad et al. (US 2012/0069847, hereinafter Saad).
Regarding claim 17, Mehta discloses a method for distributing routes among first and second routers of a first site comprising a first-site network and connected to one or more other sites through a wide area network (WAN), the method comprising [Mehta Figure 2 discloses a network where multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021). The network includes customer edge routers (e.g. 201, 202, etc.), and provider edge routers (e.g. 204, 205, etc.) (Mehta paragraph 0022)]:
At a first edge router that uses a first WAN link that is a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) link to connect the first site to a second site through the WAN [Mehta discloses that multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021); and provider edge routers communicate with customer sites using customer edge routers (see Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0022-0023). Mehta further discloses that technologies such as MPLS may be used in the core network (Mehta paragraph 0022); and VPN services may be provided to customers over ISP’s MPLS network (Mehta paragraph 0004, Figure 1)];
Receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link [Mehta discloses that the edge routers (202, 203) may register the transport IP addresses to reach edge router 201 based on BGP route associated with IP addresses of PE facing interfaces (i.e. may receive BGP routes) (Mehta paragraph 0035). Also, multiprotocol BGP may be used for propagating L3 VPN routes (Mehta paragraph 0053)].
Mehta does not expressly disclose the features of receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link; and using an open shortest path first (OSPF) protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to a second edge router that uses a second WAN link to connect the first site to the second site through the WAN.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Saad discloses examples of scalable MPLS based networks and methods for determining an OSPF metric at a border router for transporting data between edge routers. The method includes receiving a BGP message with an MPLS label and replacing it with another MPLS label associated with the edge routers (Saad paragraphs 0007 and 0008). BGP route messages may be exchanged between edge routers may specify next-hop information and an address of the second edge router (e.g. PER2) (Saad paragraphs 0018 and 0019). In an example, when BGP messages are received from an OSPF area, the BGP engine modifies the message by replacing MPLS label, updating route cost attribute, and redistributes the message into other OSPF area (Saad paragraph 0038). This indicates receiving BGP routes for an MPLS network, and using OSPF to distribute the routes to another edge router. As mentioned above, Mehta already discloses that multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021); and provider edge routers communicate with customer sites using customer edge routers (see Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0022-0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta and Saad to have the features of receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link; and using an open shortest path first (OSPF) protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to a second edge router that uses a second WAN link to connect the first site to the second site through the WAN. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide scalable MPLS based networks which enable significantly reduced OSPF and LDP database sizes and facilitate efficient sharing of route information (Saad paragraphs 0009 and 0018).
Regarding claim 19, Mehta and Saad disclose the method of claim 17. Mehta and Saad further disclose wherein the first site network is a first local area network of the first site, and the second site comprises a second LAN network that connects to the first LAN through the WAN to which the first and second edge routers of the first site connect [Mehta Figure 2 discloses a network which includes multiple customer sites (e.g. 243, 244, etc.) which are connected across a WAN. The site 243 includes an edge router 201, which connects to edge routers 204, 205 (Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0021-0022). The IP addresses (e.g. 228, 229) are assigned to the PE facing interfaces, and assigned to the customer by the service provider (i.e. similar to A site comprising a LAN network) (Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0025-0026)]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, Mehta and Saad disclose the method of claim 17. Mehta and Saad further disclose wherein the second edge router connects the first site's network to a public network [Mehta Figure 2 discloses that the edge routers 204-208 are part of service provider network (i.e. a public network), and they connect to the edge routers that are part of customer network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0022)]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 25, Mehta discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program for execution by a set of processing units, the program for distributing routes among first and second routers of a first site comprising a first-site network and connected to one or more other sites through a wide area network (WAN), the program comprising sets of instructions for [Mehta Figure 2 discloses a network where multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021). The network includes customer edge routers (e.g. 201, 202, etc.), and provider edge routers (e.g. 204, 205, etc.) (Mehta paragraph 0022). Mehta further discloses a computer-readable medium storing the firmware and/or software which comprises instructions that cause a processor, a computer and/or a machine having a processor to perform one or more particular processes (Mehta paragraphs 0040-0042)]:
At a first edge router that uses a first WAN link that is a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) link to connect the first site to a second site through the WAN [Mehta discloses that multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021); and provider edge routers communicate with customer sites using customer edge routers (see Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0022-0023). Mehta further discloses that technologies such as MPLS may be used in the core network (Mehta paragraph 0022); and VPN services may be provided to customers over ISP’s MPLS network (Mehta paragraph 0004, Figure 1)]:
Receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link [Mehta discloses that the edge routers (202, 203) may register the transport IP addresses to reach edge router 201 based on BGP route associated with IP addresses of PE facing interfaces (i.e. may receive BGP routes) (Mehta paragraph 0035). Also, multiprotocol BGP may be used for propagating L3 VPN routes (Mehta paragraph 0053)].
Mehta does not expressly disclose the features of receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link; and using an open shortest path first (OSPF) protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to a second edge router that uses a second WAN link to connect the first site to the second site through the WAN.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Saad discloses examples of scalable MPLS based networks and methods for determining an OSPF metric at a border router for transporting data between edge routers. The method includes receiving a BGP message with an MPLS label and replacing it with another MPLS label associated with the edge routers (Saad paragraphs 0007 and 0008). BGP route messages may be exchanged between edge routers may specify next-hop information and an address of the second edge router (e.g. PER2) (Saad paragraphs 0018 and 0019). In an example, when BGP messages are received from an OSPF area, the BGP engine modifies the message by replacing MPLS label, updating route cost attribute, and redistributes the message into other OSPF area (Saad paragraph 0038). This indicates receiving BGP routes for an MPLS network, and using OSPF to distribute the routes to another edge router. As mentioned above, Mehta already discloses that multiple customer sites are connected over a WAN using overlay network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0021); and provider edge routers communicate with customer sites using customer edge routers (see Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0022-0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta and Saad to have the features of receiving a set of border gateway protocol (BGP) routes for an MPLS network accessed through the MPLS link; and using an open shortest path first (OSPF) protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to a second edge router that uses a second WAN link to connect the first site to the second site through the WAN. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide scalable MPLS based networks which enable significantly reduced OSPF and LDP database sizes and facilitate efficient sharing of route information (Saad paragraphs 0009 and 0018).
Regarding claim 27, Mehta and Saad disclose the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 25. Mehta and Saad further disclose wherein the first site network is a first local area network of the first site, and the second site comprises a second LAN network that connects to the first LAN through the WAN to which the first and second edge routers of the first site connect [Mehta Figure 2 discloses a network which includes multiple customer sites (e.g. 243, 244, etc.) which are connected across a WAN. The site 243 includes an edge router 201, which connects to edge routers 204, 205 (Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0021-0022). The IP addresses (e.g. 228, 229) are assigned to the PE facing interfaces, and assigned to the customer by the service provider (i.e. similar to A site comprising a LAN network) (Mehta Figure 2, paragraphs 0025-0026)]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 28, Mehta and Saad disclose the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 25. Mehta and Saad further disclose wherein the second edge router connects the first site's network to a public network [Mehta Figure 2 discloses that the edge routers 204-208 are part of service provider network (i.e. a public network), and they connect to the edge routers that are part of customer network (Mehta Figure 2, paragraph 0022)]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 25.
Claims 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of Saad, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2018/0019952, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 18, Mehta and Saad disclose the method of claim 17. Although Mehta Figure 2 discloses that edge routers may connect to the other routers that are part of service provider network; Mehta and Saad do not expressly disclose wherein using the OSPF protocol comprises using the OSPF protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router through a set of one or more switches of the network for the set of switches to use to communicate with the first edge device.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Li Figure 1 discloses a network comprising of a plurality of routers (e.g. label switch routers or switches), edge routers, etc., and is configured to employ protocols such as a BGP, a multicast OSPF, and/or any other suitable routing protocol (Li Figure 1, paragraph 0032). This indicates that to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router comprises distributing the routes through a set of one or more switches of the network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta, Saad and Li to have the features of wherein using the OSPF protocol comprises using the OSPF protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router through a set of one or more switches of the network for the set of switches to use to communicate with the first edge device. The suggestion/motivation would have been to more efficiently prevent congestion overload and ensure a higher throughput and QoS in the network (Li paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 26, Mehta and Saad disclose the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 25. Although Mehta Figure 2 discloses that edge routers may connect to the other routers that are part of service provider network; Mehta and Saad do not expressly disclose wherein the set of instructions for using the OSPF protocol comprises a set of instructions for using the OSPF protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router through a set of one or more switches of the network for the set of switches to use to communicate with the first edge device.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Li Figure 1 discloses a network comprising of a plurality of routers (e.g. label switch routers or switches), edge routers, etc., and is configured to employ protocols such as a BGP, a multicast OSPF, and/or any other suitable routing protocol (Li Figure 1, paragraph 0032). This indicates that to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router comprises distributing the routes through a set of one or more switches of the network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta, Saad and Li to have the features of wherein the set of instructions for using the OSPF protocol comprises a set of instructions for using the OSPF protocol to distribute the set of BGP routes to the second edge router through a set of one or more switches of the network for the set of switches to use to communicate with the first edge device. The suggestion/motivation would have been to more efficiently prevent congestion overload and ensure a higher throughput and QoS in the network (Li paragraph 0006).
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta in view of Saad, and further in view of Natu et al. (US 2017/0093794, hereinafter Natu).
Regarding claim 24, Mehta and Saad disclose the method of claim 17. Mehta and Saad do not expressly disclose wherein the set of BGP routes is provided to the second edge router for the second edge router to learn routes to the MPLS network.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Natu discloses that the edge routers are configured to execute a routing protocol as BGP to exchange messages for MAC signaling or learning as well as for access topology and VPN endpoint discovery. The edge routers may be connected by an MPLS LSP infrastructure (Natu paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta, Saad and Natu to have the features of wherein the set of BGP routes is provided to the second edge router for the second edge router to learn routes to the MPLS network. The suggestion/motivation would have been to perform MAC address learning to efficiently forward L2 network communications in the network (Natu paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 32, Mehta and Saad disclose the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 25. Mehta and Saad do not expressly disclose wherein the set of BGP routes is provided to the second edge router for the second edge router to learn routes to the MPLS network.
However, in the same or similar field of invention, Natu discloses that the edge routers are configured to execute a routing protocol as BGP to exchange messages for MAC signaling or learning as well as for access topology and VPN endpoint discovery. The edge routers may be connected by an MPLS LSP infrastructure (Natu paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mehta, Saad and Natu to have the features of wherein the set of BGP routes is provided to the second edge router for the second edge router to learn routes to the MPLS network. The suggestion/motivation would have been to perform MAC address learning to efficiently forward L2 network communications in the network (Natu paragraph 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 and 29-31 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.
Claims 21 and 29 would be allowable because the closest prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of wherein the set of BGP routes is a first set of routes based on a BGP first routing protocol, the method further comprising receiving, from the second edge router, a second set of routes based on a second routing protocol for the public network accessed through the second WAN link; in combination with all other limitations in the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAUMIT SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-6959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, EDAN ORGAD can be reached at (571) 272-7884. 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.
/SAUMIT SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414