Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Preliminary Amendment filed 01/04/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 01/04/2024 and 10/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
7. As to claims 8-20, dependent claims 8-20 recite different statutory categories “a controller”, “a node” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” than independent method claims 1-7. Each of the controller, the node and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of dependent claims 8-20 is NOT “a product made by the base method claims 1-7” and it can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim 1. Also, claims 8-20 currently claim a controller, a node and a non-transitory computer storage medium being used to perform the base method claims 1-7, that do not further limit the base method claims 1-7. Therefore, they would NOT be proper dependent claims of the base method claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements (Examiner respectfully suggests to amend (or rewrite) claims 8-20 as independent claims including all limitations as in claims 1-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pignataro et al. (US 2019/0238448 A1), hereinafter “Pignataro”.
10. As to claim 1, Pignataro discloses a Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (SBFD) path optimization method, which is applied to a controller, the method comprising:
acquiring SBFD information, wherein the SBFD information represents performing SBFD on a first path ([0021-0023]);
determining configuration routing information according to the SBFD information, wherein the configuration routing information comprises a path identifier and first path information corresponding to the first path, the path identifier (i.e., Your Discriminator (YD) identifier) corresponds to second path information pre-configured in a reflector node on the first path, and nodes through which a second path corresponding to the second path information passes are the same as nodes through which the first path passes (i.e., S-BFD control packet 300 is transmitted through network 10 from first network element 100 to sixth network element 106 along forward path 312 including first network element 100, second network element 102, fourth network element 104, and sixth network element 106 which are the same nodes in the first return path 332) (FIG. 3 and [0022-0026]); and
sending a packet carrying the configuration routing information to an initiator node on the first path, such that the packet is sent from the initiator node to the reflector node along the first path and sent from the reflector node to the initiator node along the second path (i.e., response S-BFD control packet 320 is transmitted by the S-BFD reflector from sixth network element 106 to first network element 100 along first network return path 332 which is the reverse order of forward path 312) (FIG.3 and [0026]).
11. As to claim 2, Pignataro discloses the SBFD path optimization method of claim 1, wherein determining configuration routing information according to the SBFD information comprises: acquiring a preset mapping table (i.e., assignment table 200), wherein the preset mapping table comprises the first path information and the path identifier; and determining the configuration routing information according to the SBFD information and the preset mapping table (FIG. 3 and [0022-0026]).
12. As to claim 3, Pignataro discloses the SBFD path optimization method of claim 2, wherein determining the configuration routing information according to the SBFD information and the preset mapping table comprises: obtaining the first path information corresponding to the first path according to the SBFD information; querying the preset mapping table according to the first path information to obtain the path identifier mapped to the first path information; and determining the configuration routing information according to the first path information and the path identifier (FIG. 3 and [0022-0026]).
13. As to claim 4, Pignataro discloses the SBFD path optimization method of claim 2, wherein the preset mapping table is generated by: acquiring the first path information of the initiator node; acquiring the second path information of the reflector node and the path identifier corresponding to the second path information; and establishing the mapping table between the first path information and the path identifier corresponding to the second path information, wherein nodes through which the first path corresponding to the first path information passes are the same as nodes through which the second path corresponding to the second path information passes (i.e., S-BFD control packet 300 is transmitted through network 10 from first network element 100 to sixth network element 106 along forward path 312 including first network element 100, second network element 102, fourth network element 104, and sixth network element 106 which are the same nodes in the first return path 332) (FIG. 3 and [0022-0026]).
14. As to claim 5, Pignataro discloses the SBFD path optimization method of claim 4, wherein establishing the mapping table between the first path information and the path identifier corresponding to the second path information comprises: determining, according to the first path information, the second path which passes through the same nodes as the first path corresponding to the first path information; determining the path identifier corresponding to the second path information according to the second path information corresponding to the second path; and establishing the mapping table according to the first path information and the determined path identifier (i.e., Once S-BFD control packet 300 is received by sixth network element 106, the YD identifier 310 is compared with stored data entries in discriminator column 210 of assignment table 200. In this example, YD identifier 310 matches first discriminator identifier 211 associated with the first discriminator. This initiates an S-DFD control packet 320 to be transmitted to first network element 100 along a first return path 332 determined based on first action 221 associated with first discriminator 211) (FIG. 3 and [0022-0026]).
15. As to claims 6-7, claims 6-7 recite similar limitations as of method claim 1 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
16. As to claims 8-20, claims 8-20 are corresponding controller, node and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims that recite similar limitations as of method claims 1-7 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
17. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
18. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, Wing Chan, can be reached at (571) 272-7493. The fax phone number for the organization 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441