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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 11/21/2023 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7,9-14 and 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or amend these claims into their base claims, respectively.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to:
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,277,329 B2 [application No.17/068,465], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention.
This is an obvious type Non-statutory double patenting rejections, because the claims are the same, they are more narrow in the instant application. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(2) and (3) for "Anticipation Analysis" and "Obviousness Analysis", Thus they are not patentably distinct from each other, see table below:
Instant Application
US. Patent No. 11,277,329 B2
Claim 1. A method performed by a network node of a network for handling Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) flooding topology inconsistency, the method comprising:
computing or receiving a new flooding topology; setting a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology; and
transmitting the first indication in the data packet to the second network node.
Claim 1. A method performed by a network node for Handling Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) flooding topology inconsistency, the method comprising:
obtaining a new flooding topology, wherein the new flooding topology is obtained by one of computing or receiving the new flooding topology;
setting a flooding topology flag field (FT field) in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology;
transmitting the data packet containing the FT field to the second network node;
receiving a second data packet from the second network node, the second data packet comprising the FT field set by the second network node to indicate whether the link between the network node and the second network node is on the new flooding topology as determined by the second network node;
comparing the FT field set by the second network node in the second data packet to the flooding topology flag field set by the network node in the data packet;
setting a flooding topology inconsistency field (I-field) in a link state (LS) packet to indicate an inconsistency in the new flooding topology when the FT field set by the second network node in the second data packet and the FT field set by the network node are different for a given time; and
distributing the LS packet containing the flooding topology I-field that is set to indicate the inconsistency in the new flooding topology to at least one node in the network.
Claim 8. A network node comprising:
memory storing instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the network node to:
compute or receive a new flooding topology of a network; set a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology; and
transmit the first indication in the data packet to the second network node.
Claim 11. A network node comprising memory storing instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the network node to:
obtain a new flooding topology, wherein the new flooding topology is obtained by one of computing or receiving the new flooding topology;
set a flooding topology flag field (FT field) in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology;
transmit the data packet containing the FT field to the second network node;
receive a second data packet from the second network node, the second data packet comprising the FT field set by the second network node to indicate whether the link between the network node and the second network node is on the new flooding topology as determined by the second network node;
compare the FT field set by the second network node in the second data packet to the FT field set by the network node in the data packet; set a flooding topology inconsistency field (I-field) in a link state (LS) packet to indicate an inconsistency in the new flooding topology when the FT field set by the second network node in the second data packet and the FT field set by the network node are different for a given time; and
distribute the LS packet containing the flooding topology I-field that is set to indicate the inconsistency in the new flooding topology to at least one node in the network.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application by receiving a second data packet having a flag field the first indication including in an Extended Options and Flag and transmit the data packet with the first indication.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,848,853 B2 [application No.17/694,094], Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the patented application, which lead to the same claimed invention. This is an obvious type Non-statutory double patenting rejections, because the claims are the same, they are more narrow in the instant application. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(2) and (3) for "Anticipation Analysis" and "Obviousness Analysis", thus they are not patentably distinct from each other, see table below:
Instant Application
US. Patent No. 11,848,853 B2
Claim 1. A method performed by a network node of a network for handling Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) flooding topology inconsistency, the method comprising:
computing or receiving a new flooding topology;
setting a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology; and
transmitting the first indication in the data packet to the second network node.
Claim 1. A method performed by a network node of a network for handling Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) flooding topology inconsistency, the method comprising:
computing or receiving a new flooding topology;
setting a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology;
transmitting the first indication in the data packet to the second network node;
receiving a second data packet having a second indication indicating whether the link between the network node and the second network node is on the new flooding topology; comparing the first indication and the second indication;
setting a third indication in a link state (LS) packet to indicate an inconsistency in the new flooding topology when the first indication and the second indication are different for a given time; and
distributing the LS packet containing the third indication to at least one node in the network.
Claim 8. A network node comprising:
memory storing instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the network node to:
compute or receive a new flooding topology of a network;
set a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology; and
transmit the first indication in the data packet to the second network node.
Claim 11. A network node comprising memory storing instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the network node to:
compute or receive a new flooding topology of a network;
set a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology; transmit the first indication in the data packet to the second network node;
receive a second data packet having a second indication indicating whether the link between the network node and the second network node is on the new flooding topology;
compare the first indication to the second indication;
set a third indication in a link state (LS) packet to indicate an inconsistency in the new flooding topology when the first indication and the second indication are different for a given time; and
distribute the LS packet containing the third indication to at least one node in the network.
The independent claims and their dependent claims of the instant application contain similar limitations of the independent and their dependent claims of the co-pending application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the language of the claims presented contain the same limitations claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the patented application to create the instant application by receiving a second data packet having a flag field in order to set a flooding topology inconsistency field in a link state packet to indicate an inconsistency in the new flooding topology when the FT field set by the second network node in the second data packet and the FT field set by the network node are different for a given time.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li Publication No. (US 2019/0312805 A1) in view of Van de Velde et al. Publication No. (US 2020/0084109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method performed by a network node of a network for handling Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) flooding topology inconsistency (sharing of link state information between network devices may occur within a network topology implementing an interior gateway protocol (IGP) [0035] FIG.1), the method comprising:
computing or receiving a new flooding topology (the leader computes the flooding topology. In one or more embodiments of the invention, computing the flooding topology includes computing a set of links from among all the links of the network devices such that each network device has at least two paths to each other network device [0045-46] FIG.3);
setting a first indication in a data packet to indicate whether a link between the network node and a second network node is on the new flooding topology (the leader determines the link state update and indicates that updated flooding topology is required, then the flooding topology is re-computed, re-encoded, and re-distributed [i.e., new flooding topology] a link status update may indicate that a flooding topology is no longer bi-connected, which causes the leader to re-compute the flooding topology to satisfy the condition that the flooding topology be at least bi-connected [0053-54] FIG.3); and
transmitting the first indication in the data packet to the second network node (each of the adjacent devices transmits the received update according to the flooding topology [0051] the updated flooding topology is distributed throughout the network, e.g., transmitted to the new network device [0055-56] FIG.3).
Li does not explicitly teach the first indication in the data packet.
Van teaches the first indication in the data packet (Van: sending a particular type-length-value (TLV) that includes a field configured to support a first value indicative that flooding of link-state information is to be supported and a second value indicative that flooding of link-state information is not to be supported, the first indication as to whether flooding of link-state information is to be supported is sent based on a path computation performed by the first node for reaching an anchor node of a link-state flooding topology [0006-7] FIG.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Li by the teaching of Van to include the indication in the data packet in order to support sparse link-state flooding using a reduced or minimal link-state distribution topology that reduces or minimizes the amount of link-state information that is exchanged and may be automatically increased responsive to various conditions (e.g., link failures, node failures, or the like), or the like (Van: [0084-85]).
Regarding claim 8, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 1, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “network node” side with a memory and processors (Li: [0016) and the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claim. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore, this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 15, related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claim 1, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from a “computer program” with instructions executed by a processor (Li: [0031) and the wordings of the claim were interchanged within the claim itself or were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claim. Adding these phrases to the claim and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to this claim. Therefore, this claim was rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472