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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 14-16, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al (US 2017/0288948) in view of DONG (US 2018/0316645)
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, SINGH et al (US 2017/0288948) discloses router comprising circuitry configured to:
receive an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) update with anycast group information therein (SINGH: ¶27, PEs 6 belong to an anycast group; ¶28, the CE (router) received IGP metrics update in IGP advertisement messages),
compute, at the router, a route for the anycast group based on a preferred metric associated with the anycast group information (SINGH: ¶36, compute, at the CE router, the forwarding path from the PE based on a preferred metric which is a lower IGP metric), wherein the preferred metric is used by the router to select, among a plurality of nodes associated with the anycast group, a node for forwarding based on the preferred metric (SINGH: ¶36, compute, at the CE router, the forwarding path from the PE based on a preferred metric selecting the new active DF PE e.g. PE 5b), and
install the computed route (SINGH: ¶35, the newly elected DF PE 6B is used to perform the forwarding by the CE (equivalent to installing the new route)).
SINGH remains silent, however, DONG (US 2018/0316645) discloses creating or updating a record for an anycast group with the anycast group information (DONG: ¶81-82, the base station being a routing entity, creates and updates records of the anycast group information based on the received anycast group information)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SINGH would have been motivated to use the teachings of DONG as it reduces overall latency by minimizing the hops of the required information (¶106) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SINGH with teachings of DONG in order to reduces latency in selecting an anycast device from the anycast group (¶106).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16, SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 1, wherein the preferred metric is specifically defined in the anycast group information, and wherein the circuitry is configured to use the preferred metric from the anycast group information in performing the computation of the route at the router (SINGH: ¶35, the IGP link metric is specifically defined in the received information for the anycast IP address).
Regarding claim 7, 14, 20, SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 1, wherein the anycast group information includes one of (1) border nodes sharing a same anycast prefix segment, and (2) planes of a plurality of nodes sharing a same anycast prefix segment (¶27, the anycast IP address is the same which includes the prefix).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/8/15 above, further in view of DUNBAR et al (US 2023/0262112)
Regarding claim 3, 10 SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 2. SINGH modified by DONG remains silent regarding, however, DUNBAR discloses the preferred metric is specifically defined in the anycast group information in a sub-Type-Length-Value (TLV) (DUNBAR: ¶75, ¶79, sub-TLV contains anycast routing cost metric).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SINGH modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of DUNBAR as it provides a standard OSPFv3 field improving compatibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SINGH modified by DONG with teachings of DUNBAR in order to improve compatibility with standard protocol.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, 13, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/8/15 above, further in view of BERZIN et al (US 2021/0297891)
Regarding claim 4, 11, 17, SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 1/8/15, wherein the preferred metric a metric based on which path is computer (DONG: ¶71, nearest or lowest cost or healthiest destination is a metric based on which a route is computed)
SINGH modified by DONG remains silent regarding the preferred metric being another metric besides an IGP metric.
However, BERZIN et al (US 2021/0297891) discloses the preferred metric being another metric besides an IGP metric (BERZIN: ¶66, delay and TE metrics in IGP message which are other than an IGP metric).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SINGH modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of BERZIN as it provides computational liberty to the computational algorithm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SINGH modified by DONG with teachings of BERZIN in order to improve failure handling by adding flexibility of metrics.
Regarding claim 6, 13, 19, SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 1/8/15, wherein the preferred metric is specified in the IGP update, the metric being for the route for the anycast group (SINGH: ¶35-37, IGP update messages with the metric and is for anycast group).
SINGH modified by DONG remains silent regarding, however, BERZIN discloses the metric being a delay and wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform a delay measurement to obtain delay metrics (BERZIN: ¶47, ¶66, the metric includes latency/delay and it is measure for the route).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of LU modified by SINGH would have been motivated to use the teachings of BERZIN as it provides computational liberty to the computational algorithm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of LU modified by SINGH with teachings of BERZIN in order to improve failure handling by adding flexibility of metrics.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH modified by DONG as applied to claim 1/8/15 above, further in view of XU et al (US 2023/0216775)
Regarding claim 5, 12, 18, SINGH modified by DONG discloses router of claim 1, wherein the IGP update is received (SINGH: ¶27, PEs 6 belong to an anycast group; ¶28, the CE (router) received IGP metrics update in IGP advertisement messages); the circuitry is configured to perform computation of the route at the router based on the preferred metric (SINGH: ¶36, compute, at the CE router, the forwarding path from the PE based on a preferred metric which is a lower IGP metric)
SINGH modified by DONG remains silent regarding an update message via an a sub-TLV therein specifying the preferred metric and the sub-TLV being of an Extended IP Reachability Type-Length-Value (TLV).
However, XU et al (US 2023/0216775) discloses an update message via an a sub-TLV therein specifying the preferred metric and the sub-TLV being of an Extended IP Reachability Type-Length-Value (TLV); (XU: Fig. 8, ¶126-128, the sub-TLV being in an Extended IP reachability TLV); wherein the preferred metric specified in the sub-TLV rather than a default IGP metric (XU: ¶127, the metric is specified in the sub-TLV).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SINGH modified by DONG would have been motivated to use the teachings of XU as it allows for larger metric values compared to the narrow metric's limit of 63, which is essential for accurate path selection in large service provider networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SINGH modified by DONG with teachings of XU in order to allow expansion of the network without compromising manageability and route filtering.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
340
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner, without agreeing with the above argument, respectfully submits that LU is not relied upon to teach claim 1, 8 or 15. Therefore the above argument is moot.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image2.png
286
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Applicants take a position that SINGH is “fundamentally different” because CE performs the forwarding decisions and computations of the route. Examiner respectfully submits that CE is reasonably interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art as the claimed router.
SINGH, in ¶32 states:
[0028] In accordance with the techniques described herein, because PEs 6 are configured in active-standby redundancy for EVPN 23 and, more particularly, for Ethernet segment 13A, PEs 6 advertise different underlay IGP metrics (hereinafter, “metrics”) to cause CE device 8A to send traffic destined for customer equipment of remote customer network 7B to the active PE 6 that is also the DF with respect to EVPN 23. Upon election as DF for EVPN 23, PE 6A uses the local IGP routing protocol to advertise a lower IGP metric into network 15A for the common anycast IP address for VXLAN 14A. Further, as a non-DF, PE 6B usings the local IGP routing protocol of network 15A to advertise a relatively higher IGP metric into network 15A for the common anycast IP address. As such, PEs 6A, 6B influence the forwarding of outbound traffic within local network 15A based on DF status of the PEs with respect to EVPN 23 of intermediate wide area network 3.
…
[0032] Because PE 6A is initially the active DF in this example and advertises a relatively lower IGP metric to itself from CE device 8A than that advertised by standby non-DF PE 6B, CE device 8A computes an IGP shortest path to the common anycast IP address to PE 6A. That is, CE device 8A determines the IGP link advertised by PE 6A with the relatively lower metric is a link in the shortest path to the common anycast IP address. CE device 8A therefore initially forwards L2 traffic 24 that is destined to MAC M4 on the VXLAN 14A via an outbound interface to PE 6A.
This is reasonably interpreted as teaching, “…receive an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) update with anycast group information therein,
compute, at the router, a route for the anycast group based on a preferred metric associated with the anycast group information, wherein the preferred metric is used by the router to select, among a plurality of nodes associated with the anycast group, a node for forwarding based on the preferred metric…”
SINGH remains silent, however, newly cited reference DONG (US 2018/0316645) discloses creating or updating a record for an anycast group with the anycast group information (DONG: ¶81-82, the base station being a routing entity, creates and updates records of the anycast group information based on the received anycast group information)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of SINGH would have been motivated to use the teachings of DONG as it reduces overall latency by minimizing the hops of the required information (¶106) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of SINGH with teachings of DONG in order to reduces latency in selecting an anycast device from the anycast group (¶106).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights