DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication on June 26th, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagarajan et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication no. 2018/0034648, hereinafter Nagarajan).
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, Nagarajan discloses a computer-implemented method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer readable medium of reducing border gateway protocol (BGP) signaling for multi-homed devices (paragraph [0006], lines 1-10, a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) join synch route to synchronize a join request for a multicast group across the Ethernet segment, wherein a customer edge (CE) router is multi-homed top the plurality of the PE routers), comprising:
receiving one or more signals from one or more provider edge devices (paragraph [0032], lines 1-8, provider edge (PE) router 10 learn the MAC address for customer equipment 4), wherein the one or more signals include an address of a membership group associated with a multi-homed device (paragraph [0034], lines 1-4, receive group membership information);
receiving, from a provider edge device of the one or more provider edge devices, a service prefix (paragraph [0140], lines 1-3, considered to be part of the prefix), wherein the service prefix is associated with the multi-homed device and the membership group (paragraph [0139], lines 28-34, group address of the IGMP membership report);
storing the service prefix and the one or more provider edge devices (paragraph [0038], PE routers within an EVPN may communicate such IGMP instructions by exchanging routing information and forwarding information); and
connecting, according to the service prefix and the one or more provider edge devices, to the multi-homed device associated with the membership group (paragraph [0114], attached to the multi-homed ES and receives an IGMP membership report).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claims 1, 9, and 17, further comprising: updating the stored service prefix and the stored one or more provider edge devices after a deviation of the one or more signals (paragraph [0118], update their state information).
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 19, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claims 2, 10, and 18, wherein the deviation is caused by a change of a signal of the one or more signals, indicating a withdrawal of a failed provider edge device from the membership group (paragraph [0116]-[0117]).
With respect to claims 4, 12, and 20, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2 and 10, wherein the deviation is caused by a change of a signal of the one or more signals, indicating an addition of a new provider edge device to the membership group (paragraph [0092], new IGMP join request).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the provider edge device is an elected provider edge device selected by the one or more provider edge devices of the membership group (paragraph [0060], lines 1-6, elected PE router).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the service prefix is further associated with one or more VPN service routes (paragraph [0140], lines 11-17, participating within the EVPN domain).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6 and 14, wherein the one or more VPN service routes are updated according to a withdrawal of a failed provider edge device by removing a VPN service route of the one or more VPN service routes, wherein the VPN service route is associated with the failed provider edge device (paragraph [0116]-[0117]).
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Nagarajan discloses the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 9, wherein the service prefix and the one or more provider edge devices are stored in a data table associated with the membership group (paragraph [0038], PE routers within an EVPN may communicate such IGMP instructions by exchanging routing information and forwarding information).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 26th, 2026have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Further with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, the applicant argues that Nagarajan fails to disclose wherein the one or more signals include an address of a membership group associated with a multi-homed device.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges that the cited portions of the prior art (paragraph [0034] pf Nagarajan) does not disclose the address of the multi-homed device, the claims as currently presented do not necessitate the disclosure of the multi-homed devices address. Rather the claims merely require that the address of a membership group be associated with the multi-homed device. Therefor the IGMP group membership, of which the multi-homed PE routers are members of, satisfies the functionality of the claim language. Furthermore, Nagarajan teaches the multicast source address being included in the IGMP membership report, see paragraph [0139] as further substantiating an address of the membership group being associated with a multi-homed device.
Further with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, the applicant argues that Nagarajan fails to disclose receiving, from a provider edge device of the one or more provider edge devices, a service prefix, wherein the service prefix is associated with the multi-homed device and the membership group.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant merely argues that the cited “prefix” of Nagarajan is a not a “service prefix”, without articulating what the distinguishing functionality of claimed “service prefix” is other than a prefix, when again the claims merely require that the service prefix be “associated” with the multi-homed device and the membership group, thus the claim language lacks the narrow limitations being argued by the applicant.
Further with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, the applicant argues that Nagarajan fails to disclose storing the service prefix and the one or more provider edge devices.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the routing information base (RIB) and forwarding information base (FIB) tables include the storage of a prefix and one or more provider edge devices, as described in paragraphs [0100], [0102], and [0119].
Lastly with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17, the applicant argues that Nagarajan fails to disclose connecting, according to the service prefix and the one or more provider edge devices, to the multi-homed devices associated with the membership group.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains, for the reasons argues above with respect to the service prefix and the membership group, that Nagarajan anticipates each and every limitation of the claims as currently presented, including the connection of the multi-homed device as described in paragraph [0114] of the prior art. And therefore maintains the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Srinivas Pat. Pub. 2025/0247326
Elizabeth Pat. Pub. 2021/0099400
Zhang Patent no. 10,033,636
Boutros Pat. Pub. 2022/0200903
Boutros Pat. Pub. 2022/0131721
Boutros Pat. Pub. 2021/0352011
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 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 BLAKE J RUBIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3802. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
9/3/26
/BLAKE J RUBIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights