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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 4 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14 and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 4 and 15 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are currently pending.
The respective rejections of Claims 7 and 18 and Claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 4 December 2025 regarding the outstanding rejection of pending Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are noted. However, Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 12 has introduced a new basis for the rejection as presented below.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the following (refer to pages 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks):
“For example, paragraph [00101] (Office note: of Applicant’s specification) discloses a priority value of the routing information 1 is 3, a priority value of the routing information 2 is 6, a priority value of the routing information 3 is 5, and a priority value of the routing information 4 is 1. Paragraph [00102] further discloses after the priority value of the routing information 2 is modified from 6 to 4, the priority of the routing information 3, 5, is higher than the priority of the routing information 2. Therefore, the neighbor device A forwards traffic by using the routing information 3.”
However, the Office notes that this level of detail with regards to priority of the routing information, specifically numerical values disclosed as being compared against one another, are not found in the claim language. MPEP 2111 recites the following (emphasis added): “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” As such, the Office gives the term “priority” its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning (e.g., “the right to precede others in order, rank; precedence”). Such plain meaning is consistent with other examples provided in Applicant’s specification, as described in paragraphs 0105-0106, which describes non-limiting types of parameters to be used when adjusting priorities of routing information (MED, protocol preference value, AS-Path, or the like). Therefore, Nalawade’s disclosure, whereby new/changed routes are prioritized during routing table updates above stale information, can reasonably be considered to have higher priority than the stale routing information that is replaced (Figure 15A and paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0126-0130). As the claim language in Claims 1 and 12 is not limited to the details alleged by Applicant, and Nalawade’s disclosure is consistent with the plain meaning of the term “highest priority”, the rejection of Claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite (emphasis added) “selecting one piece of candidate routing information in a local routing table as the second routing information”. This recitation of “the second routing information” lacks antecedent basis in the claim language. Further, the claims recite “updating routing information used to forward target traffic…from first routing information to second routing information.” It is not clear whether this recitation refers to the earlier recitation of “the second routing information”. Claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 1 and 12.
Further regarding Claim 12, this claim now recites (emphasis added) “the first routing information sends the target traffic to the restart device, and the second routing information sends the target traffic to another device.” It is not clear from the claim language or Applicant’s specification how either “routing information” could send traffic to another device. Looking to Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0078, “(t)he first routing information indicates the neighbor device to send the target traffic to the restart device, and the second routing information indicates the neighbor device to send the target traffic to another device.” As such, the neighbor device sends the traffic, not the routing information (which indicates to the device to perform the action of sending). Claims 13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nalawade et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20060171404), hereinafter Nalawade.
Regarding Claim 1, Nalawade discloses a traffic forwarding method, comprising:
selecting one piece of candidate routing information in a local routing table as the second routing information, wherein candidate routing information with a highest priority in the candidate routing information in the local routing table is selected as the second routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which allow for forwarding traffic to destinations, as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065; paragraphs 0126-0130 – the resetting BGP speaker receives BGP Updates from the receiving BGP speaker comprising new/changed routes that were advertised during the period of soft reset and recovery);
when a restart device in a network enters a restart state, updating routing information used to forward target traffic, by a neighbor device of the restart device from first routing information to second routing information, wherein the first routing information directs the neighbor device to send the target traffic to the restart device, and the second routing information directs the neighbor device to send the target traffic to another device (Figures 15A-15B and paragraphs 0118-0130 – a resetting BGP speaker (i.e., restart device) executes a soft graceful restart capability and the receiving BGP speaker (i.e., the neighbor device) updates routes that are part of the received AFI/SAFI from the resetting BGP speaker; paragraphs 0061 – each router maintains a routing table that lists all feasible paths from that router to each network (e.g., such as the network shown in Figure 1); and
forwarding, by the neighbor device, the target traffic based on the second routing information (Figures 15A-15B and paragraphs 0118-0130 – the receiving BGP speaker (i.e., the neighbor device) updates routes for forwarding traffic (e.g., at steps 1560-1564 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065) that are part of the received AFI/SAFI from the resetting BGP speaker; paragraphs 0061 – each router maintains a routing table that lists all feasible paths from that router to each network (e.g., such as the network shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Nalawade discloses obtaining, by the neighbor device, the second routing information (Figure 15A-15B – the receiving BGP speaker receives the soft notification message from the resetting BGP speaker comprising the AFI and SAFI (1506), retains routes previously received from the peer and marks them as stale (1550), and receives and processes any subsequent routing updates from the resetting speaker (1560)).
Regarding Claim 3, Nalawade discloses the candidate routing information does not comprise the first routing information (Figure 15A-15B – the receiving BGP speaker receives the soft notification message from the resetting BGP speaker comprising the AFI and SAFI (1506), retains routes previously received from the peer and marks them as stale (1550), and deletes any routes that had previously been marked stale from the RIB (thereby removing routing information)).
Regarding Claim 5, Nalawade discloses adjusting, by the neighbor device, a priority of the first routing information and a priority of the second routing information, to enable the priority of the second routing information to be higher than the priority of the first routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale, indicative that some routing information is lower priority than other routing information).
Regarding Claim 6, Nalawade discloses modifying, by the neighbor device, a value of a first parameter corresponding to the first routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale), wherein the first parameter indicates a priority of the routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale, indicative that some routing information has a different priority).
Regarding Claim 8, Nalawade discloses adding, by the neighbor device, identification information to the first routing information, wherein the identification information indicates that the first routing information is routing information has low priority (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which are shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065).
Regarding Claim 10, Nalawade discloses after updating, by the neighbor device of the restart device the routing information used to forward the target traffic from the first routing information to the second routing information, the method further comprises: sending, by the neighbor device, a notification message to a neighbor device of the neighbor device, wherein the notification message indicates that the priority of the second routing information is higher than the priority of the first routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which allow for forwarding traffic to destinations, as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065; paragraphs 0126-0130 – the resetting BGP speaker receives BGP Updates from the receiving BGP speaker comprising new/changed routes that were advertised during the period of soft reset and recovery).
Regarding Claim 11, Nalawade discloses after the restart device is successfully restarted and the neighbor device receives routing information advertised by the restart device, updating the routing information used to forward the target traffic, by the neighbor device from the second routing information to the first routing information; and forwarding, by the neighbor device, the target traffic based on the first routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which allow for forwarding traffic to destinations, as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065; paragraphs 0126-0130 – the resetting BGP speaker receives BGP Updates from the receiving BGP speaker comprising new/changed routes that were advertised during the period of soft reset and recovery).
Regarding Claim 12, Nalawade discloses a traffic forwarding device (Figure 1 - any of interdomain routers 200), comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 2, route processor 202); and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions for execution by the at least one processor (Figure 2, memory 204), the instructions instruct the at least one processor to cause the traffic forwarding device to:
select one piece of candidate routing information in a local routing table as the second routing information, wherein candidate routing information with a highest priority in the candidate routing information in the local routing table is selected as the second routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which allow for forwarding traffic to destinations, as shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065; paragraphs 0126-0130 – the resetting BGP speaker receives BGP Updates from the receiving BGP speaker comprising new/changed routes that were advertised during the period of soft reset and recovery);
update routing information used to forward target traffic, when a restart device in a network enters a restart state, from first routing information to second routing information, wherein the first routing information sends the target traffic to the restart device, and the second routing information sends the target traffic to another device (Figures 15A-15B and paragraphs 0118-0130 – a resetting BGP speaker (i.e., restart device) executes a soft graceful restart capability and the receiving BGP speaker (i.e., the traffic forwarding device) updates routes that are part of the received AFI/SAFI from the resetting BGP speaker; paragraphs 0061 – each router maintains a routing table that lists all feasible paths from that router to each network (e.g., such as the network shown in Figure 1); and
forward the target traffic based on the second routing information (Figures 15A-15B and paragraphs 0118-0130 – the receiving BGP speaker (i.e., the traffic forwarding device) updates routes for forwarding traffic (e.g., at steps 1560-1564 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065) that are part of the received AFI/SAFI from the resetting BGP speaker; paragraphs 0061 – each router maintains a routing table that lists all feasible paths from that router to each network (e.g., such as the network shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Nalawade discloses the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to cause the traffic forwarding device to: obtain the second routing information (Figure 15A-15B – the receiving BGP speaker receives the soft notification message from the resetting BGP speaker comprising the AFI and SAFI (1506), retains routes previously received from the peer and marks them as stale (1550), and receives and processes any subsequent routing updates from the resetting speaker (1560)).
Regarding Claim 14, Nalawade discloses the candidate routing information does not comprise the first routing information (Figure 15A-15B – the receiving BGP speaker receives the soft notification message from the resetting BGP speaker comprising the AFI and SAFI (1506), retains routes previously received from the peer and marks them as stale (1550), and deletes any routes that had previously been marked stale from the RIB (thereby removing routing information)).
Regarding Claim 16, Nalawade discloses the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to cause the traffic forwarding device to adjust a priority of the first routing information and/or a priority of the second routing information, to enable the priority of the second routing information to be higher than the priority of the first routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale, indicative that some routing information is lower priority than other routing information).
Regarding Claim 17, Nalawade discloses the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to cause the traffic forwarding device to modify a value of a first parameter corresponding to the first routing information; and the first parameter indicates a priority of the routing information (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale, indicative that some routing information has a different priority).
Regarding Claim 19, Nalawade discloses the instructions further instruct the at least one processor to cause the traffic forwarding device to: add identification information to the first routing information, and the identification information indicates that the first routing information has a low priority (Figure 15A – the receiving BGP speaker marks routes as stale (1550) and sends a BGP update to the resetting BGP speaker (step 1556), the contents of which are shown in Figure 4 and described in paragraphs 0062-0065).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nalawade in view of Mayya et al (United States Patent 10454714), hereinafter Mayya. Nalawade discloses the limitations of Claims 8 and 19, as described above. Nalawade further discloses the BGP Update message comprising a Path Attributes field (Figures 4-6 and paragraphs 0062-0065 – the Path attributes field further comprises type, length, value triple including reachability information for destinations). However, Nalawade does not disclose extending (by the neighbor device) a value of a second parameter corresponding to the first routing information, wherein an extended value of the second parameter is the identification information added in the first routing information, the second parameter comprises a community attribute parameter or an extended community attribute parameter, and when a value corresponding to the community attribute parameter or the extended community attribute parameter is an added value, a priority of the first routing information is lowest. In an analogous art, Mayya discloses this. Specifically, Mayya discloses a user may specify BGP communities in a priority-order (e.g. based on their mapping to local-preference on the provider-edge (PE) router side (e.g. a provider-edge router can be a version of a CE router that sits on the provider's edge instead of the customer's edge, etc.), allowing a gateway to automatically redistribute route ‘R’ with a community value from this ordered list which is more preferred than the community value chosen on the route redistributed by gateway (Column 8, lines 18-26). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Nalawade and Mayya. One would have been motivated to do so in order to manage resources necessary to set up and maintain site-to-site VPNS (refer to column 1, lines 33-38 of Mayya).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472