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 § 102
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 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 1-3, 6-7, 13-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ananthamurthy et al. (US 2024/0314060 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ananthamurthy discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a first network device (e.g. 202-1, 202-2), a media access control (MAC) advertisement route message indicating that a second network device (e.g. 204-1, 204-2) has discovered a MAC address of a host device (such as paragraph [0074]-[0076], illustrating receiving advertisement route message relating to a host device 210 from a second PE device when the host device 210 moves to the second device PE); and deleting, by the first network device, one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device (paragraph [0076]-[0078]; and etc., describing deleting or removing the membership or MAC address of the host device based on the received advertisement).
Regarding claim 13, the claim includes features identical to subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding a first network device, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 2 and 14, Ananthamurthy further discloses comprising: storing, by the first network device, based on identifying an association of the one or more multicast group memberships with the host device, the MAC address, the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device, and an attachment circuit of the first network device in an entry of a database associated with internet group management protocol (IGMP) or multicast listener discovery (MLD) snooping with explicit tracking (figs. 2-4; paragraph [0045]-[0050]; [0055]; [0032]; [0076]-[0078]; [0088]-[0090]; and so on).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Ananthamurthy discloses wherein deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device includes deleting the entry from the database (paragraph [0076]-[0078]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 6 and 18, Ananthamurthy discloses wherein deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device includes deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device using an internet protocol (IP) address of the host device (paragraph [0073]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 7 and 19, Ananthamurthy discloses wherein the first network device is a first provider edge device associated with an Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN), and wherein the second network device is a second provider edge device associated with the EVPN (paragraph [0058]-[0060]; [0052]-[0053]; [0034]-[0038]; and so on).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-5, 9-10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananthamurthy in view of Dorenbosch (US 2007/0168555 A1).
Regarding claim 4-5 and 16-17, as applied above, Ananthamurthy discloses comprising transmitting, by the first network device, based on receiving the MAC advertisement route message, message associated with the host device (figs. 3-4; paragraph [0076]-[0078]). However, Ananthamurthy does not disclose comprising: the transmitting is a group-specific membership query for a multicast group membership of the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device, and determining that a response to the group-specific membership query has not been received, wherein deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device includes deleting the multicast group membership based on determining that the response to the group-specific membership query has not been received.
Dorenbosch comprising: the transmitting is a group-specific membership query for a multicast group membership of the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device, and determining that a response to the group-specific membership query has not been received, wherein deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device includes deleting the multicast group membership based on determining that the response to the group-specific membership query has not been received.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprising: the transmitting is a group-specific membership query for a multicast group membership of the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device, and determining that a response to the group-specific membership query has not been received, wherein deleting the one or more multicast group memberships associated with the host device includes deleting the multicast group membership based on determining that the response to the group-specific membership query has not been received as taught by Dorenbosch into Ananthamurthy in order to reduce dropping of data, and to improve overall performance and cost.
Regarding claim 9, Ananthamurthy discloses a method, comprising: discovering, by a network device of a network, a media access control (MAC) address of a host device, associated with an attachment circuit, that has moved to the network device from another network device of the network (such as figs. 2-4; paragraph [0074]-[0077]; [0065]-[0069]; [0072]; and so on); and transmitting, by the network device, based on discovering the MAC address of the host device that has moved to the network device from the other network device, over the attachment circuit, message (figs. 2-4; paragraph [0076]-[0078]).
Ananthamurthy does not disclose the transmitted forwarding MAC address is a general membership query.
Dorenbosch teaches the transmitted forwarding MAC address is a general membership query (paragraph [0027]-[0029]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the transmitted forwarding MAC address is a general membership query as taught by Dorenbosch into Ananthamurthy in order to reduce dropping of data, and to improve overall performance and cost.
Regarding claim 10, Ananthamurthy further discloses comprising: receiving a message associated with the host device. However, Ananthamurthy does not disclose receiving, by the network device, based on the general membership query, a membership report associated with the host device; and updating a group membership database based on the membership report.
Dorenbosch teaches receiving, by the network device, based on the general membership query, a membership report associated with the host device; and updating a group membership database based on the membership report (paragraph [0027]-[0029]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the transmitted forwarding MAC address is a general membership query as taught by Dorenbosch into Ananthamurthy in order to reduce dropping of data, and to improve overall performance and cost.
Regarding claim 12, Ananthamurthy discloses wherein the network is an Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) (paragraph [0058]-[0060]; [0052]-[0053]; [0034]-[0038]; and so on).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananthamurthy in view of Mathew et al. (US 2020/0036646 A1)
Regarding claim 8 and 20, as applied above, Ananthamurthy discloses the host device. However, Ananthamurthy does not disclose wherein the host device is a virtual machine.
Mathew teaches wherein the host device is a virtual machine (paragraph [0086]; [0098]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the host device is a virtual machine as taught by Mathew into Ananthamurthy in order to improve throughput, performance, and quality of service.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananthamurthy in view of Dorenbosch, and further in view of Mathew.
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Ananthamurthy discloses the host device. However, Ananthamurthy does not disclose wherein the host device is a virtual machine.
Mathew teaches wherein the host device is a virtual machine (paragraph [0086]; [0098]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the host device is a virtual machine as taught by Mathew into Ananthamurthy in order to improve throughput, performance, and quality of service.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461