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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on March 13, 2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 02/13/2026.
Remarks
Pending claims for reconsideration are claims 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance:
In response to argument (Page 2, Para: last) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that prior art Yong failed to discloses “tunneling selection response message” in regard to independent claims 1, and 10. However, Yong discloses a first NE receives a tunnel operation message from a second NE wherein the tunnel operation message is a request for a plurality of capabilities of the first NE. The first NE send it’s tunneling capabilities to the second NE (Para 0011). Furthermore, Yong discloses the tunneling capability message includes features that a tunnel egress and/or tunnel ingress may support (Para 0084: lines 37-40); and where at least one encapsulation i.e., tunnel type supported by the first NE and the third NE is identified (Para 0009: lines 25-30).
In response to argument (Page 3, Para: 1) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that prior art Yong failed to disclose “requesting, …, establishment of a tunnel” in regard to independent claims 1, and 10. However, Yong discloses the tunneling capability message includes features that a tunnel egress and/or tunnel ingress may support (Para 0084: lines 37-40); and where at least one encapsulation i.e., tunnel type supported by the first NE and the third NE is identified (Para 0009: lines 25-30).
In response to argument (Page 3, Para: 2) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that prior art Yong failed to discloses establishing tunnel between a network controller and a network element (NE) but rather teaches establishing the tunnel is between two NE’s in regard to independent claims 1, and 10. Yong describes the network element (NE) to be a network virtual element (NVE) and/or a network controller (Yong, Para 0009); therefore, the role of the controller or NE is interchangeable.
In response to argument (Page 3, Para: 3) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that prior art Yong failed to “… disclose or suggest the controller-driven negotiation sequence…” in regard to independent claims 1, and 10. Yong describes the network element (NE) to be a network virtual element (NVE) and/or a network controller (Yong, Para 0009); therefore, the role of the controller or NE is interchangeable.
In response to argument (Page 4, Para: 4) - Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that prior art Yong in view of Chiang failed to disclose “… establishment of a tunnel of a default tunnel type…” in regard to independent claim 17. Applicant provided specification describes that when no response is received from the controller a computer network device may establish tunnel using a default tunnel type (Fig. 6B and Para 0064), but failed to provide any detail what is the “default tunnel type”. Chiang describes that when a tunnel establishment wait time has expired i.e., “no response” then a second tunnel established request is initiated (Chiang, Para 0115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2017/0019331 A1 / or “Young” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yong discloses “A method comprising” (Para 0008: lines 1-3, a method of establishing a tunnel through tunnel capability message is disclosed):
“generating, by a computer networking device, a tunneling capabilities message indicating a plurality of different tunnel types supported by the computer networking device” (Para 0008: lines 35-40, a third Network Element (NE) i.e., a “computer networking device” provides tunnel capability message; and where the capability message comprises at least one of a tunnel encapsulation type supported by the third NE; and Para 0011: a first NE receives a tunnel operation message from a second NE wherein the tunnel operation message is a request for a plurality of capabilities of the first NE);
“transmitting the tunneling capabilities message to a controller” (Para 0011: the first NE send it’s tunneling capabilities to the second NE; and Para 0008: lines 23-26, the tunnel is established between the third NE and a first NE or a Network Controller; and Para 0008);
“receiving, from the controller, a tunneling selection response message indicating one tunnel type of the plurality of different tunnel types” (Para 0084: lines 37-40, the tunneling capability message includes features that a tunnel egress and/or tunnel ingress may support; and Para 0009: lines 25-30, where at least one encapsulation i.e., tunnel type supported by the first NE and the third NE is identified);
“requesting, by the computer networking device, establishment of a tunnel of the one tunnel type indicated by the tunneling selection response message responsive to receiving the tunneling selection response message” (Para 0009: 28-34, tunnel is established);
“and establishing the tunnel of the one tunnel type between the computer networking device and the controller after requesting establishment of the tunnel” (Para 0009: 28-34, tunnel is established between the first NE and the third NE).
Regarding claim 4, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses “wherein the tunneling capabilities message further includes, for each of the plurality of different tunnel types, at least one tunnel type service identifier indicating a service or protocol for messages to be communicated via the corresponding tunnel type” (Para 0009; and 0084)
Regarding claim 6, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses “ further comprising discovering a network address of the controller prior to transmitting the tunneling capabilities message” (Para 0010).
Regarding claim 7, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses “wherein the computer networking device is a networking switch” (Para 0038: a physical switch).
Regarding claim 8, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses “wherein the computer networking device is a wireless access point” (Para 0038-0040).
Regarding claim 9, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses “wherein the one tunnel type indicated by the tunneling selection response message is a tunnel type supported by the controller for normal communication, the controller supporting a second tunnel type for limited communication” (Para 0086).
Regarding claim 10, Yong discloses “A method comprising” (Para 0008: lines 1-3, a method of establishing a tunnel through tunnel capability message is disclosed):
“receiving, by a controller, a tunneling capabilities message indicating a plurality of tunnel types that are supported by a computer networking device” (Para 0008: lines 35-40, a third Network Element (NE) i.e., a “computer networking device” provides tunnel capability message; and where the capability message comprises at least one of a tunnel encapsulation type supported by the third NE; and Para 0011: a first NE receives a tunnel operation message from a second NE wherein the tunnel operation message is a request for a plurality of capabilities of the first NE);
“selecting, by the controller, one of the tunnel types from the plurality of tunnel types indicated by the tunneling capabilities message” (Para 0011: the first NE send it’s tunneling capabilities to the second NE; and Para 0008: lines 23-26, the tunnel is established between the third NE and a first NE or a Network Controller; and Para 0008);
“transmitting a tunneling selection response message to the computer networking device indicating the selected tunnel type responsive to transmitting the tunneling selection response message” (Para 0084: lines 37-40, the tunneling capability message includes features that a tunnel egress and/or tunnel ingress may support; and Para 0009: lines 25-30, where at least one encapsulation i.e., tunnel type supported by the first NE and the third NE is identified);
“receiving, by the controller, a request to establish a tunnel of the selected tunnel type responsive to transmitting the tunneling selection response message” (Para 0009: 28-34, tunnel is established);
“and establishing a tunnel of the selected tunnel type between the computer networking device and the controller responsive to receiving the request to establish the tunnel” (Para 0009: 28-34, tunnel is established between the first NE and the third NE).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 7. Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 7, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 8. Claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 8, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong in view of Kol et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2023/0367833 A1 / or “Kol” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses negotiating tunneling capabilities between two network elements (Yong, Para 0009).
But Yong fails to specially disclose a SSH tunnel type.
However, Kol discloses “wherein the plurality of different tunnel types includes a secure shell (SSH) tunnel type” (Kol, Para 223, discloses SSH tunnel type among others).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a SSH tunnel type of Kol to the system of Yong to create a system where a supported tunnel type of SSH is provided and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…enables two-way communication between a client that runs untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code…” (Kol, Para 0324).
Regarding claim 3, in view of claim 1, Yong discloses negotiating tunneling capabilities between two network elements (Yong, Para 0009).
But Yong fails to specially disclose a WebSocket tunnel type.
However, Kol discloses “wherein the plurality of different tunnel types includes a WebSocket tunnel type” (Kol, Para 326, discloses WebSocket tunnel type among others).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a WebSocket tunnel type of Kol to the system of Yong to create a system where a supported tunnel type of WebSocket is provided and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…enables two-way communication between a client that runs untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code…” (Kol, Para 0324).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong in view of Hao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2018/0102919 A1 / or “Hao” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, in view of claim 4, Yong discloses negotiating tunneling capabilities between two network elements (Yong, Para 0009).
But Yong fails to specially disclose a service chain ID as RestConf.
However, Hao discloses “wherein one of the tunnel type service identifiers indicates a RESTCONF protocol” (Hao, Para 0284, service chain ID as RestConf; and Para 0170).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of a service chain ID as RestConf of Hao to the system of Yong to generate a tunnel destination identifier (Hao, Para 0183) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “… service chain to ensure that the flow of the service chain is steered in only after all tunnels from the ingress SN to the egress SN are established. …” (Hao, Para 0162).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a method corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore, rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong in view of Hsin-Fu Chiang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: US 2021/0022197 A1 / or “Chiang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Yong discloses “A method comprising” (Para 0008: lines 1-3, a method of establishing a tunnel through tunnel capability message is disclosed):
“generating, by a computer networking device, a tunneling capabilities message indicating a plurality of different tunnel types supported by the computer networking device” (Para 0008: lines35-40, a third Network Element (NE) i.e., a “computer networking device” provides tunnel capability message; and where the capability message comprises at least one of a tunnel encapsulation type supported by the third NE);
“transmitting the tunneling capabilities message to a controller” (Para 0008: lines 23-26, the tunnel is established between the third NE and a first NE or a Network Controller; and Para 0008);
Yong further discloses using a first tunnel for a first period of time and using a second tunnel for a second period of time (Yong, Para 0086).
But Yong fails to specially disclose expiration of a tunnel establishment request and falling back to a default tunnel.
However, Chiang discloses “identifying that a tunneling selection response message from the controller has not been received after a predetermined time interval has elapsed” (Chiang, Para 0049: a dedicated tunnel setup request involves a dedicated bearer; and Para 0115: lines 4-8, a wait time has expired i.e., a “predetermined time interval has elapsed” for a tunnel initialization request through a first bearer has failed i.e., a first tunnel setup has failed);
“requesting, by the computer networking device, establishment of a tunnel of a default tunnel type [i.e., Note: specification, Fig. 6B: Step 622, describes re-connection request using default tunnel type when no response is received (however, specification failed to specify/describe the default tunnel type)] of the plurality of different tunnel types” (Chiang, Para 0115: lines 9-11, a connection reset request is sent for a subsequent tunnel initialization through a second bearer i.e., a second tunnel i.e., a “default tunnel” setup is established);
“and establishing the tunnel of the default tunnel type between the computer networking device and the controller” (Chiang, Para 0115: lines 12-16, establishes voice services through using a second bearer i.e., a “default tunnel”).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of expiration of a tunnel establishment request and providing service through a “default tunnel” of Chiang to the system Yong to have a system where by a connection reset would avoid a UE power cycle and/or cycle through airplane mode (Chiang, Para 0065; and Para 0105) and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to provide service through the default tunnel when services through other services not available (Chiang, Para 0014).
Regarding claim 20, in view of claim 17, Yong discloses “wherein the computer networking device is a networking switch” (Para 0038: a physical switch).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong in view of Chiang and in further view of Kol.
Regarding claim 18, in view of claim 17, Yong discloses negotiating tunneling capabilities between two network elements (Yong, Para 0009).
But Yong and Chiang fail to specially disclose a SSH and WebSocket tunnel types.
However, Kol discloses “wherein the plurality of different tunnel types includes a secure shell (SSH) tunnel type” (Kol, Para 223, discloses SSH tunnel type among others).
“and a Websocket tunnel type” (Kol, Para 1235, discloses WebSocket tunnel type among others).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of SSH and WebSocket tunnel type of Kol to the system of Yong and Chiang to create a system where a supported tunnel type of WebSocket is provided and the ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine to “…enables two-way communication between a client that runs untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code…” (Kol, Para 0324).
Regarding claim 19, in view of claim 18, Yong discloses “wherein the computer networking device is a networking switch” (Para 0038: a physical switch).
Relevant Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 20150244570 A1) discloses:
[0082] Exemplarily, in a process of setting up the tunnel by the openflow controller and the peer tunnel endpoint, tunneling negotiation is performed; in the negotiation process, a tunneling protocol type of the tunnel, an IP address of the peer tunnel endpoint, a tunnel identifier assigned by the peer tunnel endpoint to the openflow switch, and tunneling context information such as a tunnel identifier assigned to the peer tunnel endpoint, and the like, may be determined. The openflow controller may determine, according to the tunneling context information obtained by negotiation, matching field information, a tunneling protocol type, and a tunneling operation type of a data packet requiring tunneling processing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH ALMAMUN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3392. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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.
/ABDULLAH ALMAMUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2431
/SHIN-HON (ERIC) CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
