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 .
Priority
The Instant Application has an effective filing date of 1/31/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 2/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Based on the disclosed co-operation between the ingress and egress provide edge devices (e.g., as described in connection with FIG. 1), performing the operations of an ingress provider edge device (suggested to be Species 1) is NOT inherently mutually exclusive with (i.e., does NOT inherently preclude) performing the operations of an egress provider edge device (suggested to be Species 2). In fact, the operations performed by the ingress and egress provider edge devices are complementary to forwarding a packet from source to destination(s), e.g., as shown and described in connection with FIG. 1 with packet 131. At least for these reasons, Species 1 and 2 as defined by the election requirement are NOT mutually exclusive. Accordingly, the pending election requirement, based on non- mutually-exclusive Species, is improper and should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive because the two Species contain mutually exclusive and opposing limitations even without considering the egress and ingress devices. For example, claim 1 recites the limitation, “responsive to determining that the multicast group address of the packet is associated with an Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed: forwarding, by the IPE device, the packet on the Ethernet segment” which is in clear contrast to claim 15 which recites the limitation, “responsive to determining that the first IPE device is not multihomed on the first Ethernet segment: forwarding, by the EPE device, the first packet on the first Ethernet segment.” Claim 15 further contains limitations which are not found in the claims of Species 1. Thus the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoang et al. (2018/0331953).
As per claim 1, Hoang et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, by an ingress provider edge (IPE) device of a provider network, a packet from a source device outside of the provider network [paragraphs 0033 and 0056], wherein:
the IPE device is an ingress device receiving the packet into the provider network [paragraphs 0023-0024], and
the packet includes a multicast group address [paragraph 0045];
determining whether the multicast group address of the packet is associated with any Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed [paragraphs 0079-0081]; and
responsive to determining that the multicast group address of the packet is associated with an Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed: forwarding, by the IPE device, the packet on the Ethernet segment [paragraphs 0082-0085].
As per claim 2, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein the IPE device comprises a designated forwarder for the Ethernet segment [paragraph 0008].
As per claim 3, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein: the operations further comprise determining that the multicast group address of the packet is associated with the Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed; and a designated forwarder, for the Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed, is different from the IPE device [paragraph 0039].
As per claim 4, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: labeling, by the IPE device, the packet with a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) label comprising an IPE identifier that identifies the IPE device; and forwarding, by the IPE device, the packet labeled with the MPLS label to one or more devices within the provider network [paragraph 0024].
As per claim 6, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein determining whether the multicast group address of the packet is associated with any Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed comprises: evaluating whether the multicast group address is associated with any device on any Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed [paragraph 0042].
As per claim 7, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein determining that the multicast group address of the packet is associated with the Ethernet segment on which the IPE device is multihomed is based on configuration information and route information [paragraph 0045].
As per claim 8, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 1, wherein a second PE device, multihomed on the Ethernet segment, does not forward the packet on the Ethernet segment even though the second PE device is the designated forwarder for the Ethernet Segment [paragraph 0036].
As per claim 9, Hoang et al. teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, by an ingress provider edge (IPE) device of a provider network, a packet from a source device outside of the provider network, wherein the packet includes a multicast group address [paragraphs 0033, 0045 and 0056];
based on the multicast group address of the packet being associated with an Ethernet segment with which the IPE device provides multihoming: forwarding, by the IPE device, the packet on the Ethernet segment [paragraphs 0079-0085];
labeling, by the IPE device, the packet with a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) label comprising an IPE identifier that identifies the IPE device [paragraph 0033]; and
forwarding, by the IPE device, the packet labeled with the MPLS label to one or more devices within the provider network [paragraph 0034].
As per claim 10, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 9, wherein a designated forwarder, for the Ethernet segment, is different from the IPE device [paragraph 0048].
As per claim 11, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise determining that the IPE device is associated with the Ethernet segment based on configuration information and route information [paragraph 0055].
As per claim 12, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the multicast group address of the packet is associated with the Ethernet segment by evaluating whether the multicast group address is associated with any device on any Ethernet segment with which the IPE device provides multihoming [paragraph 0060].
As per claim 13, Hoang et al. teaches the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of Claim 9, wherein the IPE identifier is included in a MPLS header of the MPLS label [paragraph 0065].
Claim 14 has similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore it is being rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (2018/0331953) in view of Zelig et al. (2004/0037279).
As per claim 5, Hoang et al. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 4 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Zelig et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the MPLS label comprises a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) indicating one or more routes for the packet through the provider network [Zelig et al., paragraphs 0005-0006].
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 Zelig et al. with Hoang et al. in order to provide improved mechanisms for packet flooding in virtual private networks (VPNs), particularly Ethernet VPNs.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444