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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 April 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 24 April 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 24 April 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “including instructions” in the preamble of each claim while also reciting “instructions” in Claim 1. Here, the subsequent recitation of “instructions” should be preceded by either “the” or “said” in accordance with antecedent basis. In order to improve the claims, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “including instructions” to “including the instructions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “including instructions” in the preamble of each claim while also reciting “instructions” in Claim 1. Here, the subsequent recitation of “instructions” should be preceded by either “the” or “said” in accordance with antecedent basis. In order to improve the claims, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “including instructions” to “including the instructions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, said claim recites “a second node device” and further recites “the node device”. Here, the recitation of “the node device” renders the claims unclear because Examiner is unable to determine whether Applicant intends to refer to “A node device” or “a second node device”. In order to improve the clarity of the claim, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “A node device” in the preamble of Claim 1 to “A first node device” and further amending “the node device” to “the first node device” in Claims 1-7.
Regarding Claims 2-7, Claims 2-7 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1.
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 Kandasamy et al. (US 20190327113 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kandasamy”) in view of Ranns et al. (US 20170126587 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Ranns”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kandasamy discloses a node device comprising:
a processor (¶16 & Fig. 3, Kandasamy discloses an access point (AP) comprising a processing resource 330);
a memory (¶16 & Fig. 3, Kandasamy discloses the AP further comprising a memory resource 333); and
a machine-readable storage storing instructions, the instructions executable by the processor (¶16 & Fig. 3, Kandasamy discloses the memory resource of the AP stores machine-readable instructions where the machine-readable instructions, when executed, cause the processing resource to perform a method) to:
establish, by the node device, a first secure tunnel to a branch device (¶16 & Fig. 3 (339) & ¶15 & Fig. 2, Kandasamy discloses assigning, by the AP, a second tunnel tag where the second tunnel is a virtual local area network (VLAN) tunnel between the AP and a second data center 206-2), wherein the branch device is connected to a second node device via a second secure tunnel (¶16 & Fig. 3 (336), Kandasamy discloses assigning, by the AP, a first tunnel tag where the first tunnel is a VLAN tunnel between the AP and a first data center 206-1).
However, Kandasamy does not disclose subsequent to a failure of the second secure tunnel, receive, by the node device, a data packet from the branch device via the first secure tunnel; determine, by the node device, whether the data packet is associated with an existing session established via the second secure tunnel; and in response to a determination that the data packet is associated with the existing session established via the second secure tunnel, send, by the node device, the data packet to the second node device via a third secure tunnel, wherein the second node device is to modify the data packet and send the modified data packet to a remote service provider associated with the existing session.
Ranns, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches subsequent to a failure of the second secure tunnel, receive, by the node device, a data packet from the branch device via the first secure tunnel (¶63-65 & Fig. 7, Ranns discloses subsequent to a loss of connectivity of a tunnel between node B and node S, receiving, by node C, a data packet from node S via a tunnel between node B and node A);
determine, by the node device, whether the data packet is associated with an existing session established via the second secure tunnel (¶63-65 & Fig. 7, Ranns discloses determining whether the data packet is to be forwarded by node B or node C based upon whether a current forwarding session indicates which of node B or node C is a designated forwarder (DF)); and
in response to a determination that the data packet is associated with the existing session established via the second secure tunnel, send, by the node device, the data packet to the second node device via a third secure tunnel (¶63-65 & Fig. 7, Ranns discloses forwarding, by node C to node B, the data packet via a tunnel between node B and node C in response to determining whether node C or node B is a DF), wherein the second node device is to modify the data packet (¶63-65 & Fig. 7, Ranns discloses modifying, by node C, a path of the data packet via a tunnel between node B and node C) and send the modified data packet to a remote service provider associated with the existing session (¶63-65 & Fig. 7, Ranns discloses forwarding, by node C to node R, the data packet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kandasamy by that subsequent to a failure of the second secure tunnel, receive, by the node device, a data packet from the branch device via the first secure tunnel; determine, by the node device, whether the data packet is associated with an existing session established via the second secure tunnel; and in response to a determination that the data packet is associated with the existing session established via the second secure tunnel, send, by the node device, the data packet to the second node device via a third secure tunnel, wherein the second node device is to modify the data packet and send the modified data packet to a remote service provider associated with the existing session as taught by Ranss because network bandwidth is saved and throughput is improved by enabling a designated forwarder (DF) to forward a packet and initiate a DF election upon detecting a loss of communication (Ranns, ¶18-19).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wenzel et al. (US PGPUB 20230140789 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wenzel”) is cited to show a network where a primary overlay tunnel and a secondary overlay tunnel links a remote software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) to a SD-WAN base via a primary access network and a secondary access network respectively where the secondary overlay tunnel assumes forwarding of traffic in the event of a failure of the primary overlay tunnel (Wenzel, ¶17-36 & Fig. 1); Nagarajan et al. (US PGPUB 20200366602 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Nagarajan”) is cited to show a network where a first provider edge (PE) node (PE1) linked to a second PE (PE2) and a third PE (PE3) where PE2 is connected to a second CE (CE2) via a pseudowire A and PE3 is connected to CE2 via a pseudowire B where the network is configured to shift traffic from pseudowire A to pseudowire B in the event of a failure (Nagarajan, ¶15-17 & Fig. 2); Bhagvath et al. (US PGPUB 20200036577 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Bhagvath”) is cited to show a network where a headquarters (HQ) comprises a first router 208 and a second router 210 where each router is linked to a branch office via a first tunnel 226 and a second tunnel 226 respectively; and Proulx et al. (US PGPUB 20100226246 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Proulx”) is cited to show a network providing pseudowire (PW) redundancy by enabling a primary PW and a backup PW to a second customer edge (CE) equipment and further switching between the PWs in the event of failure (Proulx, Abstract & Figs. 1A-1E).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights