DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Comment
The examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (U.S. 2024/0235994 A1) in view of Gavand et al. (U.S. 2023/0059537 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, He discloses a method and system comprising:
the overlay network domain disposed between a first edge node and a second edge node of a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) (see He; paragraphs 0102 and 0107; He discloses an end-to-end overlay, i.e. “overlay network domain”, tunnel between edge devices, i.e. “…disposed between a first edge node and a second edge node”, in a SD-WAN overlay SR architecture, i.e. “a software-defined wide area network”);
generating an SD-WAN session that is to utilize the underlay path for sending traffic through the overlay network domain from the first edge node to the second edge node (see He; paragraphs 0092-0095, 0102 and 0148; He discloses establishing a SD-WAN connection, i.e. “session”, including an end-to-end overly tunnel, for transport, i.e. “sending traffic”, of a packet between edge devices, i.e. “from the first edge node to the second edge node”, with an underlay link/path, i.e. “utilize the underlay path”); and
binding the SD-WAN session to a data plane output forwarding chain associated with the underlay path such that the traffic sent over the SD-WAN session traverses the underlay path of the overlay network domain (see He; paragraphs 0099, 0107, 0143, 0144 and 0148; He discloses segment routing performed on a forwarding plane, i.e. “data plane”, by the underlay transport, i.e. “traverses the underlay path”, and a SID acting as an identifier of the connection, i.e. “binding the SD-WAN session…”, for the SD-WAN overlay, i.e. “overlay network domain”, to the segment routing performed by the forwarding plane, i.e. “i.e. “a data plane output forwarding chain”).
While He discloses an “underlay path” and “overlay network domain”, as discussed above, He does not explicitly disclose receiving first path identification data associated with an underlay path of an overlay network domain; and mapping the underlay path to the SD-WAN session.
In analogous art, Gavand discloses receiving first path identification data associated with an underlay path of an overlay network domain (see Gavand; paragraphs 0027, 0084 and 0086; Gavand discloses a SD-WAN where overlay paths are between different nodes and selecting an underlay path by performing underlay route lookup, i.e. “receiving path identification associated with an underlay path…”); and
mapping the underlay path to the SD-WAN session (see Gavand; paragraphs 0027, 0077, and 0084; Gavand disclose performing the underlay route lookup for each session in which a path is found and updated as the session path, i.e. “mapping the underlay path to the SD-WAN session”, and then sending the packet on the selected underlay path).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine He and Gavand because they both disclose features of a SD-WAN connection, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, 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 the feature of path identification and mapping as taught by Gavand into the system of He in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing computing a path whose SLA meets a service requirement (see He; paragraphs 0035 and 0218) to include a per session path lookup (see Gavand; paragraphs 0076 and 0084).
Further, He discloses the additional limitations of claim 10, one or more processors (see He; paragraph 0061; He discloses a processor); and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations (see He; paragraphs 0061 and 0063; He a storage medium and at least one computer program instruction is loaded and executed by the processor).
Further, He discloses the additional limitations of claim 19, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more computing devices to perform operations (see He; paragraphs 0061 and 0063; He discloses a storage medium and at least one computer program instruction is loaded and executed by the processor).
Regarding claim 2, 11 and 20, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses receiving a packet of a traffic flow (see He; paragraphs 0057 and 0173; He discloses traffic forwarding on an SR, i.e. segment routing, path);
classifying the packet based on a policy to determine whether the packet is to be sent from the first edge node to the second edge node via a specific underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0049, 0166, 0172, 0220; He discloses forwarding a packet, based on the SR policy, i.e. “classifying the packet based on a policy”, from one endpoint to another using a SR underlay path determined from a path computation, i.e. “via a specific underlay path”); and
based at least in part on determining that the packet is to be sent from the first edge node to the second edge node via the underlay path, modifying the packet to include a binding segment identifier (SID) that is indicative of a label stack for steering the packet along the underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0119, 0122 and 0145; He discloses based on the packet being sent using an SD-WAN overlay tunnel and a transport network with a SR path, i.e. “underlay path”, the SR-MPLS header of the first packet includes a label stack, and the SID is located in the label stack in the SR-MPLS header of the first packet, i.e. “…indicative of a label stack for steering the packet along the underlay path”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein mapping the SD-WAN session to the underlay path comprises:
mapping a headend IP address associated with the underlay path to a source IP address associated with the SD-WAN session (see He; paragraphs 0040 and 0166; He discloses the head end uses an endpoint IP address that is associated with a source IP address of the SD-WAN connection, i.e. “headend IP address associated with…a source IP address…” );
mapping a tail end IP address associated with the underlay path to a destination IP address associated with the SD-WAN session (see He; paragraphs 0132 and 0259; He discloses a tail end of the SR path, i.e. “tail end IP address associated with the underlay path…”, associated with a destination IP address); and
mapping a path identifier associated with the underlay path to a path key value associated with the SD-WAN session (see He; paragraphs 0225 and 0253; He discloses the SR policy includes a SR path color, i.e. “path key value…” that is applied to the SD-WAN, i.e. “associated with the SD-WAN”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 3 and 12, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein the path identifier is a segment routing color associated with the underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0225 and 0253; He discloses the SR policy includes a SR path color, i.e. “a segment routing color associated with the underlay path”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 3 and 12, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein the first path identification data includes the headend IP address, the tail end IP address, and the path identifier (see He; paragraphs 0132, 0166, 0225, and 0259; He discloses path information including the headend IP address, the tail end IP address and a path identifier, such as, the SR path color).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein binding the SD-WAN session to the data plane output forwarding chain associated with the underlay path comprises associating, with the SD- WAN session, a binding segment identifier (SID) associated with the underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0099, 0107, 0143, 0144 and 0148; He discloses segment routing performed on a forwarding plane, i.e. “data plane”, by the underlay transport, i.e. “associated with the underlay path”, and a SID acting as an identifier of the connection, i.e. “a binding segment identifier”, for the SD-WAN overlay to the segment routing performed by the forwarding plane, i.e. “i.e. “data plane output forwarding chain”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein the underlay path is a first underlay path and the SD-WAN session is a first SD-WAN session (see He; paragraphs 0048 and 0102; He discloses the SR path, i.e. “a first underlay path”, includes a first connection, i.e. “a first SD-WAN session” in a SD-WAN), the method further comprising:
receiving second path identification data associated with a second underlay path between the first edge node and the second edge node (see Gavand; paragraphs 0027, 0084 and 0086; Gavand discloses a SD-WAN where overlay paths, i.e. “a second underlay path”, are between different nodes and selecting an underlay path by performing underlay route lookup, i.e. “receiving path identification associated with an underlay path…”);
generating a second SD-WAN session that is to utilize the second underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0048, 0092-0095, 0102 and 0148; He discloses establishing a SD-WAN connection, i.e. “session”, including an end-to-end overly tunnel, for transport, i.e. “sending traffic”, of a packet between edge devices, i.e. “from the first edge node to the second edge node”, with an underlay link/path, i.e. “utilize the second underlay path”);
mapping the second underlay path to the second SD-WAN session (see Gavand; paragraphs 0027, 0077, and 0084; Gavand disclose performing the underlay route lookup for each session in which paths, i.e. “second underlay path”, are found and updated as the session path, i.e. “mapping the underlay path to the SD-WAN session”, and then sending the packet on the selected underlay path); and
binding the second SD-WAN session to another data plane output forwarding chain associated with the second underlay path (see He; paragraphs 0099, 0107, 0143, 0144 and 0148; He discloses segment routing performed on a forwarding plane, i.e. “data plane”, by the underlay transport, i.e. “traverses the underlay path”, and a SID acting as an identifier of the connection, i.e. “binding the SD-WAN session…”, for the SD-WAN overlay, i.e. “overlay network domain”, to the segment routing performed by the forwarding plane, i.e. “i.e. “a data plane output forwarding chain”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivation as was applied in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 7 and 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein the first underlay path is a minimum delay path and the second underlay path includes a firewall (see He; paragraphs 0113 and 0220; He discloses two SR paths include a less delay, i.e. “a minimum delay”, path and a firewall), and wherein the first underlay path and the second underlay path are selected for routing the traffic through the overlay network domain based on a policy (see He; paragraphs 0049, 0166, 0172, 0220; He discloses forwarding a packet, based on the SR policy, i.e. “based on a policy”, from one endpoint to another using SR underlay paths determined from a path computation, i.e. “first underlay path and the second underlay path”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, He and Gavand disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above, and further the combination of He and Gavand clearly discloses wherein the overlay network domain is distinguishable from another overlay network domain that is (i) disposed between the first edge node and the second edge node and (ii) capable of being utilized to send the traffic from the first edge node to the second edge node (see He; paragraphs 0057, 0102, 0107, 0166 and 0173; He discloses traffic forwarding, i.e. “…utilized to send the traffic from…”, on an SR path with an end-to-end overlay tunnel between edge devices, i.e. “…disposed between the first edge node and the second edge node”, in a SD-WAN overlay SR architecture. There can be different routing domains, i.e. “overlay network domain is distinguishable from another overlay network domain”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dong (U.S. 2025/0286817 A1) discloses a SD-WAN can independently compute an overlay path.
Sivabalan et al. (U.S. 2022/0086078 A1) discloses direct a packet to a head-end node of an underlay SR-TE path using s Binding SID (BSID) which identifies underlay SR-TE paths in forwarding plane.
Shakir et al. (U.S. 2024/0275723 A1) discloses path computation in both an overlay and underlay. The network may be partitioned into domains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 04/30/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights