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 § 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 3-8 and 13 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.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, the instant claims recites “particularly wherein,” “in particular,” and “particularly” where it is unclear if these terms are providing unrecited options, with one preferred option, or if these are actual requirements. For clarity, any “in particular” or “particularly wherein” language should be removed in favor of clearly reciting what is required. Claims 4-8, which depend from claim 3, do not remedy the issue with regard to claim 3, and are rejected for the same.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0195454 (Subramanian) in view of US 6,778,531 (Kodialam) and US 11,122,000 (Saalfeld).
With regard to claim 1, Subramanian discloses a computer-implemented method for automatically configuring multicast forwarding between network participants of a network on a need-to-know basis, the method comprising automatically generating one or more multicast trees (Subramanian: Paragraph [0041]. Based on subscriptions (need-to-know basis), a multicast tree can be generated.).
Subramanian fails to disclose, but Kodialam teaches that the multicast tree is a directed multicast tree (Kodialam: Abstract, Column 3, lines 13-28, and Column 8, lines 4-19. Kodialam discloses the use of directed multicast trees, where such would allow for an optimal multicast path solution for each direction of communication instead of applying a one-size-fits-all solution associated with an undirected tree, where one of ordinary skill in the networking arts would recognize that a same path between two nodes is not necessarily the optimal path in both directions.
Subramanian fails to teach, but Saalfeld teaches that the network is an industrial network (Saalfeld: Column 1, lines 6-17. Industrial networks were well-known in the art.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the participants be of an industrial network to allow the network of Subramanian to realize a real-world application for the generic network of Subramanian.
With regard to claim 2, Subramanian in view of Kodialam and Saalfeld teaches wherein the automatically configuring comprises distinguishing, among the network participants, between a publisher role and a subscriber role and determining distinct forwarding rules taking into account said roles so a publisher reaches subscribers, but only restrictedly reaches other publishers (Subramanian: Paragraph [0003]. A publish/subscribe model would restrict communications to those nodes that have a publisher/subscriber relationship, and thus would “restrictively reach” any other node, including other publishers, with such restriction being based on being a subscriber.
With regard to claim 3, Subramanian in view of Kodialam and Saalfeld teaches automatically configuring multicast forwarding for bootstrap traffic, wherein automatically configuring multicast forwarding for bootstrap traffic comprises defining policies that allow publishers to reach only discovery servers, in particular by configuring switches of the network to forward multicast messages only to one or more discovery servers, particularly wherein bootstrapping traffic is traffic associated with bootstrapping the network, its devices, and services (Subramanian: Paragraph [0003]. In a publish/subscribe paradigm, the rules would be established to only forward multicast traffic to the subscribers. The specific type of traffic is irrelevant to the actual routing of the traffic, where any type of traffic, whether bootstrap or otherwise, would be handled according to the publish/subscribe model. If different types of traffic are handled in a different manner outside of publish/subscribe, this should be clearly expressed in the instant claim, such as by ensuring that the system identifies that the type of traffic is the bootstrap traffic, and that the rules are generated based on the identifying.).
With regard to claim 4, Subramanian fails to teach, but Kodialam teaches automatically configuring multicast forwarding comprises configuring switches of the network using switch forwarding tables (Kodialam: Abstract. The forwarding tables would be constructed from the tree.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to automatically configure the switches using switch forwarding tables to ensure that the traffic is efficiently routed in accordance with the multicast trees.).
With regard to claim 5, Subramanian fails to teach, but Kodialam teaches using a selectable set or subset of header data comprising at least parts of one source indicator in addition to at least parts of one destination multicast address (Kodialam: Column 2, lines 47-63. It is noted that how the header data is used is not actually claimed.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use at least parts of the header, including a source indicator and parts of a destination multicast address to ensure that the packets are properly routed through the network in accordance to standard practice.
With regard to claim 6, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches using internal management data of the switch to match incoming traffic to be forwarded (Kodialam: Abstract and Column 2, lines 47-63. The information from the header is used against forwarding tables for forwarding.).
With regard to claim 7, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches that each switch is configured with different granularity or a decision which set or subset of header data to use being taken globally (Kodialam: Abstract and Column 2, lines 47-63. The routers are individually configured with the use of the addresses being global.).
With regard to claim 8, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches using additional header data and/or internal management data to restrict the multicast tree so as to further minimize mutual exposure between publishers (Subramanian: Paragraph [0041]. At least the internal publish/subscribe data is used to provide forwarding only from publishers to the subscribers, thus minimizing exposure of data between publishers and non-subscribers, including non-subscribing other publishers.).
With regard to claim 9, Subramanian in view of Kodialam and Saalfeld teaches automatically generating at least two directed multicast trees using the same multicast group address, wherein one of the at least two directed multicast trees implements the distribution of requests of one participant of the network participants and one of the at least two directed multicast trees implements a collection of responses to said participant (Kodialam: Column 8, lines 4-19. A return path would be provided using the directed graph as necessary, where a reply message would use a tree defining the replying node as a source.).
With regard to claim 10, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches the at least two directed multicast trees allow for a discovery server to multicast a request to other network participants and for one or more of the other network participants to respond to the request, and/or wherein the at least two directed multicast trees allow for sub-grouping publishers in such a manner that network traffic from all publishers in a sub-group are forwarded to the same destination network participant to optimize the number of entries in the forwarding tables of switches without compromising on traffic confidentiality (Kodialam: Column 8, lines 4-19. The instant claim does not appear to recite functionality, but only recites what is allowed using the tree, where the directed multicast graphs would for this functionality. As a note, “sub-grouping” does not require that the sub-group includes multiple publishers, nor does the instant claim provides for the actual creation of the sub-grouping. Further, the use of the and/or language provides the claim items in the alternative, where the directed multicast graph would at least allow for a discovery server to multicast a request to other network participants and for one or more of the other network participants to respond to the request, making any details with regard to the sub-grouping only required in an alternative embodiment that is not required to teach the instant claim, as a whole.).
With regard to claim 11, Subramanian fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches automatically configuring multicast forwarding for operational traffic, wherein automatically configuring multicast forwarding for operational traffic comprises authenticating, by a central authority, potential publishers and subscribers of a multicasting group and configuring switches to forward multicasting messages only to one or more predefined multicast addresses associated with the authenticated publishers and subscribers of the multicasting group (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the authentication of potential participants (publishers/subscribers) by a central authority to enable the participants to be included in the tree (and thus the configuration of any network components for forwarding) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the networking arts.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate any potential participants to be included in the multicast trees to ensure that only authorized entities are able to join the multicast groups, thus reducing the likelihood of malicious actors from joining.
With regard to claim 14, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches the network comprises multiple switches and automatically configuring multicast forwarding comprises configuring the switches based on a switching table comprising distinct entries for each of multiple publishers within the same multicast group by using their source MAC or IP addresses or respective ingress ports of the switch in addition to destination address information, the entries defining respective forwarding actions for forwarding multicast messages from each respective publisher of the multicast group (Subramanian: Paragraph [0003] and Kodialam: Abstract and Column 8, lines 4-19. With the directed multicast trees, multiple publishers (source of a particular communication, including replies) would have distinct entries being made in the table.).
With regard to claim 15, Subramanian fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches leveraging application and/or service knowledge to distinguish between multicasting for bootstrapping traffic and operation traffic and, based thereon, performing multicasting configuration associated with secure bootstrapping protocols and sequences and awaiting the completion of bootstrapping for devices and services prior to performing multicast configuration associated with operational protocols used by said devices and services (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the configuration of network components based on the type of service (service knowledge) and associated traffic was well-known to one of art. As a note, the instant claim fails to provide for any specific relationship between this functionality and the multicast tree, nor does the instant claim provide for what specific entity performs any specific functionality, making the only link between this functionality and the previously recited functionality of generated the directed multicast tree(s) being that they are somehow for configuring the multicast forwarding.).
With regard to claim 16, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches detecting traffic flow identification capabilities of networking equipment and configuring the multicast forwarding between the group participants on the finest granularity supported by the networking equipment forwarding tables (Kodialam: Column 7, line 52 to Column 8, line 38. Information on the flows, network condition, and capacity is used to generate the trees and thus, in turn, the forwarding tables.).
Subramanian fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling teaches authenticating multicast group participants (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the authentication of potential participants (publishers/subscribers) to enable the participants to be included in the tree (and thus the configuration of any network components for forwarding) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the networking arts.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate any potential participants to be included in the multicast trees to ensure that only authorized entities are able to join the multicast groups, thus reducing the likelihood of malicious actors from joining.
With regard to claim 17, Subramanian teaches for each device and/or service of the network, checking whether all conditions for group admission are met (Subramanian: Paragraph [0041]. Lacking detail of what the conditions are, merely requesting to be a subscriber or a publisher would meet the requirements of a condition. For clarity, more detail should be provided with regard to the nature of the conditions for group admission.).
With regard to claim 18, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches for each device and/or service that meets the condition for group admission, determining forwarding rules for networking equipment, defining forwarding actions of multicast messages from publishers to subscribers using the most fine-granular traffic flow identification supported by the networking equipment (Subramanian: Paragraph [0003] and Kodialam: Abstract and Column 8, lines 4-19. The forwarding tables (rules) are determined for any node included in the multicast table.). Subramanian fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, teaches using network-level authentication as a condition for group admission to an application/operational bootstrapping group for bootstrapping traffic and/or using authentication and/or security key possession as a condition for group admission to an application and/or service group for operational traffic (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the authentication of potential participants (publishers/subscribers) to enable the participants to be included in the tree (and thus the configuration of any network components for forwarding) was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the networking arts. As a note, the multiple “and/or” recitations means that only one element from the list of options is required to teach the instant claim, as a whole, where at least authentication is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to authenticate any potential participants to be included in the multicast trees to ensure that only authorized entities are able to join the multicast groups, thus reducing the likelihood of malicious actors from joining.
With regard to claim 19, Subramanian in view of Kodialam teaches defining the forwarding rules comprises defining, per port, matching rules on header and/or payload data and defining forwarding actions, including forwarding multicast messages only to ports through which an authenticated subscriber is reached (Kodialam: Column 3, lines 13-28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Kodialam and Saalfeld, and further in view of Fattah.
With regard to claim 12, Subramanian fails to teach, but Fattah teaches employing an authentication and group key management functionality that authorizes configuring switches to forward multicasting messages only to one or more predefined multicast addresses associated with a security group and requiring that publisher and subscriber have authenticated and received a security key for the security group (Fattah: Paragraph [0035]. Rules may be provided for network security groups that would allow or deny flows based on a criterion.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to configure the switches with rules corresponding to a network security group to leverage well-known network security techniques as part of the router configuration, thus realizing known benefits including enabling improved organization of rules corresponding to different network nodes.
With regard to claim 13, Subramanian in view of Kodialam, Saalfeld, and Saalfeld teaches automatically configuring multicast forwarding comprises configuring switches of the network, particularly using switch forwarding tables, and/or wherein each authentication method supports a secure resolution of the secure identity used to authenticate the publishers and subscribers to address information like source MAC or IP address (Fattah: Paragraph [0035] and Kodialam: Abstract, Column 3, lines 13-28, and Column 8, lines 4-19.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444