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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Shashidhar failed to disclose wherein the first PE is capable of switching between the ingress filtering and the egress filtering. Kitada is introduced.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shashidhar et al. (US 2024/0283732) in view of Kitada (US 2017/0054646).
In regard to claim 1, Shashidhar disclosed a method comprising: receiving, at a first Provider Edge (PE) of a first Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) in an inter-connected network of EVPNs:
information on status of one or more nodes connected to the first PE, the one or more nodes being one of a leaf node or a root node; and Shashidhar [0053]-[0054]
a respective advertisement message from one or more second PEs of one or more second EVPNs in the inter-connected network of EVPNs; and Shashidhar [0057]-[0060]
performing, at the first PE:
generating, based on the information, a route advertisement message indicative of the status of the one or more nodes connected to the first PE, wherein the route advertisement message is shared with one or more second PEs; and Shashidhar [0057]-[0060]
based on the respective advertisement message received from each of the one or more second PEs, dynamically adjust configurations at the first PE, to perform ingress filtering or egress filtering of Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM) traffic received at the first PE. Shashidhar [0057]
Shashidhar failed to disclose wherein the first PE is capable of switching between the ingress filtering and the egress filtering.
However, Kitada disclosed a device that performed both ingress filtering and egress filtering. Kitada [0057], Figure 2 switch card including items 912 (ingress filtering) and 913 (egress filtering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shashidhar to perform either or both of ingress and filtering in order to properly filter packets in the Shashidhar device.
In regard to claim 2, Shashidhar disclosed:
generating a first flood list, the first flood list encompassing all PEs in the inter-connected network of EVPNs; and Shashidhar [0057]
generating a second flood list, the second flood list excluding any of the one or more second PEs with only a leaf indication included in the respective advertisement message received therefrom. Shashidhar [0107]-[0108]
In regard to claim 3, Shashidhar disclosed:
receiving the BUM traffic, at the first PE, from the leaf node attached to the first PE; and Shashidhar [0057]
performing ingress filtering of the BUM traffic received at first PE from the leaf node to prevent the BUM traffic from being sent to the any of the one or more second PEs with only the leaf indication. Shashidhar [0057]
In regard to claim 4, Shashidhar disclosed wherein the ingress filtering includes sending the BUM traffic to all PEs included in the second flood list. Shashidhar [0062]
In regard to claim 5, Shashidhar disclosed wherein the BUM traffic is sent to all PEs in the second flood list with a leaf VxLAN Network Identifier (VNI) identifying the BUM traffic as being from a leaf node, the leaf VNI enabling a receiving PE from among the one or more second PEs to perform egress filtering prior to sending the BUM traffic to a leaf node associated with the receiving PE. Shashidhar [0052]-[0053]
In regard to claim 6, Shashidhar disclosed:
receiving the BUM traffic, at the first PE, from one of the one or more second PEs; and Shashidhar [0052]-[0053]
determining whether to perform egress filtering of the BUM traffic based on a VxLAN Network Identifier (VNI) associated with the BUM traffic. Shashidhar [0052]-[0053]
In regard to claim 7, Shashidhar disclosed wherein the first PE performs egress filtering of the BUM traffic if the VNI associated with the BUM traffic identifies the BUM traffic as originating from a leaf node attached to the one of the one or more second PEs from which the BUM traffic is received, and one of the one or more nodes is the leaf node. Shashidhar [0052]-[0053]
Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following pieces of art deal with performing ingress and egress filtering.
Doi US 2018/0219799
Singh et al. US 10,887,234
Volpe et al. US 2021/0160350
Volpe US 11,076,025
Thomas, III et al. US 2021/0337008
Schultz et al. US 2022/0224684
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445