DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of PCT/US2022/036512 and 63/220053 filed 7/8/2022 and 7/9/2021, respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2016/0127142) in view of Eckert (Eckert et al., “Tree Engineering for Bit Index Explicitly Replication (BIER-TE),” available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-07, 3/9/2020) and further in view of Zhang (US Pub. 2015/0092594).
With respect to Claim 1, Tian teaches a method implemented by a bit forwarding ingress router (BFIR) in a Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic/Tree Engineering (BIER-TE) domain, comprising: (BIER-TE will be taught later. para. 30; BFIR in BIER domain)
encapsulating a packet with a BIER-TE header, (para. 30; Packet encapsulated in BIER header)
and a set identifier for each of the bitstrings; (Fig. 2b, paras. 31, 42-45; when a system has more routers than bits in a bitstring it uses Set Identifiers to express more routers.)
and forwarding the packet as encapsulated with the BIER-TE header to a bit forwarding router (BFR) in the BIER-TE domain. (para. 30, 50-57; forwarding of packet.)
But Tian does not explicitly teach BIER-TE.
Eckert, however, does teach a Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic/Tree Engineering (BIER-TE) (pg. 1; BIER-TE that coexists with BIER.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Tian with the BIER-TE to allow for centralized path steering. (Eckert, pgs. 1, 9-11)
But modified Tian does not explicitly teach a header including an indicator indicating a number of bitstrings with different set identifiers.
Zhang, however, does teach wherein the BIER-TE header includes an indicator indicating a number of bitstrings with different set identifiers in the BIER-TE header, (Examiner asserts that Tian teaches this limitation on its own, because Tian teaches a header that includes different set identifiers, see Fig. 2 and paras. 38-46. Examiner asserts that renders obvious an explicit statement of how many different SIs are in the header. Regardless, Examiner will cite Zhang, Fig. 4, paras. 53-58; Element 120 specifies a number of different Metric fields to follow. Element 114k specifies a number of links that will follow, and those by definition are different.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian and the technique in Zhang to apply the technique to the set identifiers in the bitstrings of a BIER-TE header in order to identify how many values should be expected for error checking.
With respect to Claim 2, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Eckert also teaches wherein the bitstrings with different set identifiers in the BIER-TE header represent a path through the BIER-TE domain. (pg. 1; BIER-TE is a path steering mechanism. Pg. 9; BIER-TE has path calculation by a BIER-TE controller. Pgs. 12-13; BIFT is used to perform forwarding.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 2, and Eckert also teaches wherein the path is received from a controller of the BIER-TE domain prior to the encapsulating. (Pgs. 10-13; Controller discovers topology and pushes adjacency and paths to the routers as a BIFT.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
With respect to Claim 4, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Tian also teaches wherein the number has a value greater than one (1) when the BIER-TE header contains multiple bitstrings with the different set identifiers. (Fig. 2b, paras. 42-45; Multiple SIs. Para. 31; Multiple SIs when the number of routers is high.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 1, and Tian also teaches wherein the number has a value of one (1) when the BIER-TE header does not contain multiple bitstrings with the different set identifiers. (Para. 31; SIs are needed based on number of routers, so a single SI may be sufficient. Para. 32; communication to a same SI.)
With respect to Claim 6, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Tian also teaches a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the BFIR to: (para. 66; memory and processor)
With respect to Claims 7-10, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US Pub. 2016/0127142) in view of Dutta (US Pub. 2020/0344162) in view of Dutta (“Dutta2,” US Pub. 2019/0296922) and further in view of Zhang (US Pub. 2015/0092594).
With respect to Claim 11, Tian teaches a method implemented by a bit forwarding router (BFR) in a Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic/Tree Engineering (BIER-TE) domain, comprising: (BIER-TE will be taught later. para. 30; BFR in BIER domain)
receiving a packet with a BIER-TE header, (para. 30; encoding a packet with a BIER header. paras. 50-57; BFR forwards a packet and the next-hop neighbor receives the packet.)
and a set identifier for each of the bitstrings; (Fig. 2b, paras. 31, 42-45; when a system has more routers than bits in a bitstring it uses Set Identifiers to express more routers.)
But Tian does not explicitly teach BIER-TE.
Dutta, however, does teach a Bit Index Explicit Replication Traffic/Tree Engineering (BIER-TE) domain (Fig. 8, paras. 171-176; BIER-TE network.)
checking whether a bitstring identified by the set identifier in the BIER-TE header and a bitstring identified by the set identifier in a top level bit index forwarding table (BIFT) each contain an adjacency bit position of the BFR with a same value; (A top level BIFT will be taught later. paras. 171-186; Controller programs a BIFT in each router that includes adjacency. paras. 8-10, 73, 91-93; BIER domain may have subdomains and use a hierarchical addressing scheme where the set identifier identifies a set in the subdomain. Fig. 9, para. 174, 186-187; In TE, each BFR has a TE-BIFT per subdomain that identifies which adjacencies for forwarding. Therefore, the header and the BIFT both containing an adjacency bit means a forwarding should occur. See also Dutta2, paras. 54-57; hierarchical system with routing tables that function on a subdomain/set/local hierarchy.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Tian with the BIER-TE to allow for centralized path steering.
But modified Tian does not explicitly teach a top level and second level BIFT.
Dutta2, however, does teach a top level BIFT (Fig. 26, para. 220; set forwarding table with different set identifiers.)
and processing the packet using a second level BIFT that a pointer for the set identifier in the top level BIFT points to when the bitstring identified by the set identifier in the BIER-TE header and the bitstring identified by the set identifier in the BIFT each contain the adjacency bit position of the BFR with the same value. (Fig. 12, paras. 156-159; Router creates copies of packet for each level of the hierarchy. Fig. 15, paras. 176-181; Router forwards local copy using the local table then set copy using the set table, then subdomain copy. Figs. 26-27, paras. 220-221; set and local forwarding tables. For a pointer, see Dutta, paras. 174, 198-199; Forwarding occurs by finding the right TE-BIFT that applies to the subdomain and set identifier {SD, SI} of the packet header. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date for the set routing table of Dutta2 to include an entry for the {SD, SI} so that the system can load the correct TE-BIFT for local routing within the SI.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian with the top and second level BIFTs in order to implement both intra-set and inter-set routing.
But modified Tian does not explicitly teach a header including an indicator indicating a number of bitstrings with different set identifiers.
Zhang, however, does teach wherein the BIER-TE header includes an indicator indicating a number of bitstrings with different set identifiers in the BIER-TE header, (Examiner asserts that Tian teaches this limitation on its own, because Tian teaches a header that includes different set identifiers, see Fig. 2 and paras. 38-46. Examiner asserts that renders obvious an explicit statement of how many different SIs are in the header. Regardless, Examiner will cite Zhang, Fig. 4, paras. 53-58; Element 120 specifies a number of different Metric fields to follow. Element 114k specifies a number of links that will follow, and those by definition are different.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Tian and the technique in Zhang to apply the technique to the set identifiers in the bitstrings of a BIER-TE header in order to identify how many values should be expected for error checking.
With respect to Claim 12, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta also teaches wherein processing the packet using the second level BIFT comprises forwarding a copy of the packet to an adjacent bit forwarding router (BFR) when the adjacency bit position is a forward-connected adjacency. (para. 186; forward connected adjacencies. Paras. 189-193; forwarding over forward connected adjacencies based upon bitstring.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 13, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta also teaches wherein processing the packet using the second level BIFT comprises forwarding a payload of the packet according to a next protocol when the adjacency bit position is a local decapsulation adjacency. (para. 65; a packet is encapsulated with a BIER header when it is received by the ingress router. Figs. 8, 10F, paras. 176, 188-194; When BR7 is a destination, the string lookup on the BIFT returns a local value, which causes the router to strip the header (decapsulate) and deliver it locally using some other protocol than BIER. See also Dutta2, para. 77; protocols to forward a packet out of the BIER domain.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 14, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta2 also teaches wherein each bitstring in the BIER-TE header and each bitstring in the top level BIFT is identified by one of the set identifiers. (Fig. 26, para. 220; set identifier in set-BIFT. See also Tian, para. 31, 51; set identifier for bitstring.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 15, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta also teaches wherein the same value comprises one (1). (para. 65; bits control forwarding. Paras. 154-155; zeros mean do not forward. See also Tian, paras. 7, 30; “1” bit for forwarding and “0” bit for not forwarding.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 16, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta also teaches wherein the second level BIFT is one of a plurality of second level BIFTs in the BFR. (para. 174; There is one BIFT for each subdomain and setid. Para. 198-199; BFR forwards by finding the correct TE-BIFT for the received BIER header.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 17, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 16, and Dutta also teaches wherein each of the plurality of second level BIFTs in the BFR corresponds to one of the set identifiers. (para. 174; There is one BIFT for each subdomain and setid.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 18, modified Tian teaches the method of claim 11, and Dutta also teaches wherein the top level BIFT includes a pointer to a second level BIFT for each of the set identifiers. (para. 174; There is one BIFT for each subdomain and setid.)
The same motivation to combine as Claim 11 applies here.
With respect to Claim 19, it is substantially similar to Claim 11 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Tian also teaches a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the BFR to: (para. 66; memory and processor)
With respect to Claim 20, it is substantially similar to Claim 12 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449