Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 07/06/2026.
Notice of 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 .
Claims Status
Claims 9 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 7-8, 10-11, 13-15 have been amended.
Claims 16-21 have been newly added.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wood et al. (Patent No. US 10,148,551), the prior art discloses that for each path in the set of N paths, the path computation device determines a total metric for the path, e.g., as the sum of the metrics of the links traversed by the path; see column 11 lines 3-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 15-16, and 20-21 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 4-6, the claims were interpreted as including at least one or more contingent limitations. However, Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments with respect to the interpretation have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Accordingly, the claim interpretation is hereby withdrawn.
35 USC § 102
Applicant remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, argue that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to disclose the features in claim 1, specifically,
> “determining that the first path fails, increasing a first cost value corresponding to the first path; wherein the increased first cost value is greater than a second cost value corresponding to the second path”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kan discloses that when a network node on the main path fails, the first network node [source node] needs to send the data to the second network node [destination node] through the backup path [second path]; see ¶ 35. Furthermore, the first cost value of the main path [first path] may be set to be greater than the cost value of the backup path [second path], so as, to temporarily suspend sending data through the main path; see ¶ 45.
Applicant submits that Kan does not disclose changing the cost value immediately upon occurrence of the failure. Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,“immediately upon occurrence of the failure”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
> “comparing the increased first cost value corresponding to the first path and the second cost value corresponding to the second value; determining that the increased first cost value is greater than the second cost value, selecting the second path as the main path, and selecting the first path as the backup path”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. During the process of determining the data transmission path, the first network node will select the path with the smaller path cost value to send data to the second network node; see ¶ 46. NOTE: It’s inherent that the first cost value of the main path and the second cost value of the backup path are being compared to determine whether to allow data forwarding through the main path or the backup path. Therefore, by setting the first cost value of the primary path to be greater than the second cost value of the backup path, the first network node [source node] use the backup path for data transmission; ¶ 46.
> Applicant submits that Kan’s switchback decision is time based in contrast to the cost base comparison. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kan discloses that during path switching, this invention temporarily suspends data transmission through the main path during the delay period after the main path is confirmed to be restored; see ¶ 41-40. However, the decision to switch path is based on whether the first cost value of the primary path to be greater than the second cost value of the backup path; see ¶ 46.
For these reasons discussed above the claim is met by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Kan et al. (Publication No. CN 105704022, hereinafter referred to as Kan). NOTE: The mapping presented below is based on the EPO translation of the CN105704022, see document named “CN_105704022_Translation.pdf”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, Kan discloses a path switching method, applied to a source node, wherein a first path and a second path are presented between the source node and a destination node (There are two data transmission paths between the first network node [source node] and the second network node [destination node], wherein data transmission path comprises a main path [first path] and a backup path [second path]; see figure 1 & ¶ 35.), and
the method comprises (The path switching operation; see ¶ 35.):
after the first path is selected as a main path, and the second path is selected as a backup path (When a network node on the main path fails, the first network node [source node] needs to send the data to the second network node [destination node] through the backup path [second path]; see ¶ 35. ), and
determining that the first path fails, increasing a first cost value corresponding to the first path ; wherein the increased first cost value is greater than a second cost value corresponding to the second path (The first cost value of the main path [first path] may be set to be greater than the cost value of the backup path [second path], so as, to temporarily suspend sending data through the main path; see ¶ 45.);
comparing the increased first cost value corresponding to the first path and the second cost value corresponding to the second value (During the process of determining the data transmission path, the first network node will select the path with the smaller path cost value to send data to the second network node; see ¶ 46. NOTE: It’s inherent that the first cost value of the main path and the second cost value of the backup path are being compared in order to determine whether to allow data forwarding through the main path or the backup path.);
when the increased first cost value is greater than the second cost value, selecting the second path as the main path, and selecting the first path as the backup path (Therefore, by setting the first cost value of the primary path to be greater than the second cost value of the backup path, the first network node [source node] use the backup path for data transmission.; ¶ 46.); and
when failure of the first path is recovered, comparing the increased first cost value corresponding to the first path and the second cost value corresponding to the second value (when it is determined that the main path has been restored, the transmission of data to the second network node through the main path is temporarily suspended, and the transmission of data to the second network node continues through the backup path, wherein the backup path is the current data transmission path between the first network node and the second network node; see ¶ 39);
determining that the increased first cost value is greater than the second cost value, remaining the second path as the main path, and remaining the first path as the backup path (The first cost value of the main path may be set to be greater than the second cost value of the backup path, so as to temporarily suspend sending data through the main path and continue sending data through the backup path; ¶ 45.).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 11, Kan discloses acquiring a first priority of the first path and a second priority of the second path (The data transmission path can be switched by setting different priorities for the primary path and the backup path; see ¶ 51), and determining the first cost value of the first path and the second cost value of the second path based on the first priority and the second priority; wherein when the first priority is greater than the second priority, the first cost value is less than the second cost value (The default cost value of the primary path is usually less than the second cost value of the backup path; see ¶ 50.); and
comparing the first cost value and the second cost value; determining that the first cost value is less than the second cost value, selecting the first path as the main path, and selecting the second path as the backup path (During the process of determining the data transmission path, the first network node will select the path with the smaller path cost value to send data to the second network node; see ¶ 46. So that in the default state, the first network node will send data to the second network node through the primary path; see ¶ 50. NOTE: It’s inherent that the first cost value of the main path and the second cost value of the backup path are being compared in order to determine whether to allow data forwarding through the main path or the backup path.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al. (CN105704022 translation, hereinafter referred to as Kan) in view of Vasseur et al. (Publication No. US 2007/0183317, hereinafter referred as Vasseur).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, Kan discloses switching between the main path to a backup path based on cost, but fails to explicitly disclose determining a cost adjustment value based on the first cost value corresponding to the first path and the second cost value corresponding to the second path, wherein the cost adjustment value is greater than a difference between the second cost value and the first cost value; and increasing the first cost value corresponding to the first path based on the cost adjustment value. However, in analogous art, Vasseur discloses a path cost increase from the primary tunnel [path] to the backup tunnel may be computed as a difference between the entire length of the primary and backup tunnels; see ¶ 57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kan path switching system with the cost calculation of Vasseur in order to determine the shortest or best path based on the cost.
Claims 4-5, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan et al. (CN105704022 translation, hereinafter referred to as Kan) in view of Marinakis al. (Publication No. US 2009/0066540, hereinafter referred as Marinakis).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 18, Kan discloses comparing the first cost value corresponding to the first path and the second cost value corresponding to the second value; and determining that the first cost value corresponding to the first path is less than the second cost value corresponding to the second path, selecting the first path as the main path, and selecting the second path as the backup path (During the process of determining the data transmission path, the first network node will select the path with the smaller path cost value to send data to the second network node [destination node]; see ¶ 46. The cost value of the primary path can be set to a third cost value, wherein the third cost value is less than the second cost value of the backup path, so as to stop sending data through the backup path and start sending data through the
primary path; see ¶ 47.).
Kan discloses switching between the main path to a backup path based on cost, but fails to explicitly disclose determining that the second path fails, increasing the second cost value corresponding to the second path. However, in analogous art, Marinakis discloses when transmission fails after exhausting all retries, the strength of the failed link is temporarily reduced by increasing the cost associated with communication via that link; see ¶ 88. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kan path switching system with the cost mechanism of Marinakis in order to determine the shortest or best path based on the cost.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, Kan discloses switching between the main path to a backup path based on cost, but fails to explicitly disclose periodically detecting a network quality index corresponding to the second path; and determining, based on the network quality index, that the second cost value corresponding to the second path needs to be increased, increasing the second cost value corresponding to the second path based on the network quality index. However, in analogous art, Marinakis discloses when transmission fails after exhausting all retries [network quality index], the strength of the failed link is temporarily reduced by increasing the cost associated with communication via that link; see ¶ 88. Routine updating of the network model; see ¶ 90. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kan path switching system with the cost mechanism of Marinakis in order to determine the shortest or best path based on the cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights