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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 19, and 20 have been amended. No claim is added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims contain a terms “AD per ES” that are not clearly defined.
Claims 5, 8, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 contains a term “a state indicator”, if it is similar to the term “a state indicator” in claim 1, change “a” to “the”; claim 8 contains a term “an encapsulation value”, if it is similar to the term “an encapsulation value” in claim 1, change “an” to “the”, and claim 19 contains a term “an encapsulation value” in line 9 and 13-14, if it is similar term change “an” in line 13 to “the”
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 and 20 recite the limitation “the identifier" in line 15 of claim 1, and in line 9 of claim 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-18, further depending from the claim 1, are likewise rejected.
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) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LABONTE et al. (US 20210273891) hereinafter LABONTE in view of LEE et al. (US 20100054251) hereinafter LEE and further in view of Brissette et al. (US 20180109400) hereinafter Brissette.
Regarding claim 1, LABONTE teaches a device, comprising: a processor; a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (i.e. networking system 100 can include a network of switch units (packet engines, packet processing engines, and the like) 102 interconnected by communication fabric 104. The communication fabric can provide communication paths for forwarding packets among switch units, [0019]); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (i.e. a computer subsystem having a CPU, a memory, and a storage device, [0032] and Digital processing units can include general CPUs that operate by way of executing computer program code stored on a non-volatile computer readable storage medium (e.g., read-only memory, ROM), [0070]), receive a set of identifiers from at least one network device (i.e. shared forwarding state can include state information that is associated with the local ports of the switch units in networking system. Thus, for example, shared forwarding state can be a compilation of state information (e.g., port status, configuration, statistics, etc.) reported by switch unit 1, switch unit 2, switch unit 3, switch unit 4, [0020] and the shared forwarding state can include information that identifies virtual output queues and their corresponding ports, [0045]); detect, based on the set of identifiers, one or more egress ports associated with the at least one network device (i.e. identify an egress port on which to forward a received packet. The egress port can be one of the local ports 526 of switch unit 500, [0042], [0045], [0055]-[0061] and [0069]); and create, in response to the detection of the one or more egress ports, a virtual output (“VO”) queue for at least one egress port of the one or more egress ports (i.e. creating virtual output queues, [0066], [0022], and [0045]).
However, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose determine one or more tagging operations to be performed for transmission over each egress port, wherein an encapsulation value is indicative of the one or more tagging operations; and broadcast the identifier, a state indicator, and the encapsulation value of each egress port.
However, LEE teaches determine one or more tagging operations to be performed for transmission over each egress port (i.e. determine whether to insert a tag into the packet, based on the tagging information of a port, [0042]), wherein an encapsulation value is indicative of the one or more tagging operations (i.e. the encapsulation unit inserts the tag if the tagging information of the port indicates a value 1, and does not insert the tag if the tagging information of the port does not indicate a value 1, [0042] and [0043]); and broadcast the identifier, a state indicator, and the encapsulation value of each egress port (i.e. setting an output port identification (ID) obtained from the FDB table and tagging information obtained from the VLAN port table, to the metadata, [0010] and setting the default VLAN ID, the priority, and the port state information to the metadata, and transmits the packet, [0062]).
Based on LABONTE in view of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of LEE to the system of LABONTE in order to improve performance of an Ethernet switch, (LEE, [0006]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose a congestion management logic and an Ethernet Auto-Discovery ("AD") per Ethernet Segment ("ES") route.
However, Brissette teaches a congestion management logic (i.e. At the attachment circuits packets received thereat are normalized such that VLAN tags of the received packets match corresponding VLAN tags associated with logical interfaces of the cross-connect service, [0044]) and an Ethernet Auto-Discovery ("AD") per Ethernet Segment ("ES") route (i.e. (i.e. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0034]).
Based on LABONTE in view of LEE and further in view of Brissette, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Brissette to the system of LABONTE and LEE in order to avoid traffic associated with a VPWS service tunnel may be unduly lost at an endpoint node of the service tunnel when there is a failure in the Ethernet segment, (Brissette, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, LABONTE teaches wherein an identifier of the set of identifiers corresponds to a system port identifier of an egress port of the one or more egress ports (i.e. the shared forwarding state can include information that identifies virtual output queues and their corresponding ports, [0045] and [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose wherein the set of identifiers is received with an Ethernet Auto-Discovery (AD) per Ethernet Segment (ES) route.
However, Brissette teaches wherein the set of identifiers is received with an Ethernet Auto-Discovery (AD) per Ethernet Segment (ES) route (i.e. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0034]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 3 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 4, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose wherein the set of identifiers is received with the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (“EVPN”) border gateway protocol (“BGP”) extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute
However, Brissette teaches wherein the set of identifiers is received with the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (“EVPN”) border gateway protocol (“BGP”) extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute (i.e. Border Gateway Protocol exchange) with the provider edge device an Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0013]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 5, LABONTE teaches receive a state indicator from the at least one network device (i.e. shared forwarding state 106 can include state information that is associated with the local ports of the switch units in networking system, [0020]); and detect, based on the state indicator, an operational state of the at least one egress port, [0055]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 6, LABONTE teaches wherein the state indicator is received with the set of identifiers (i.e. [0055]-[0061]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose an Ethernet AD per ES route.
However, Brissette teaches an Ethernet AD per ES route (i.e. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0034]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 7, LABONTE teaches wherein the state indicator is received with the set of identifiers (i.e. [0055]-[0061]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an EVPN BGP extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute.
However, Brissette teaches the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an EVPN BGP extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute (i.e. Border Gateway Protocol exchange) with the provider edge device an Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0013]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 7 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 8, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the congestion management logic is further configured to receive an encapsulation value from the at least one network device, and wherein the encapsulation value is configured to signal one or more tagging operations to be performed for egress port transmission.
However, LEE teaches receive an encapsulation value from the at least one network device (i.e. The encapsulation unit 155 obtains tagging state information of the packet from the metadata, in operation S515, [0042]), and wherein the encapsulation value is configured to signal one or more tagging operations to be performed for egress port transmission (i.e. The encapsulation unit 155 determines whether to insert a tag into the packet, based on the tagging information of a port, in operation S520. In more detail, the encapsulation unit 155 inserts the tag if the tagging information of the port indicates a value 1, and does not insert the tag if the tagging information of the port does not indicate a value 1, [0042] and [0043]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 9, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the encapsulation value is received with the set of identifiers and an Ethernet AD per ES route.
However, Lee teaches wherein the encapsulation value is received with the set of identifiers (i.e. the encapsulation unit 155 reads tagging information from the VLAN port table 170 based on the VLAN ID, a linecard ID, and the output port ID, [0042]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose an Ethernet AD per ES route.
However, Brissette teaches an Ethernet AD per ES route (i.e. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0034]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 10, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose wherein the encapsulation value is received with the set of identifiers and the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an EVPN BGP extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute.
However, Lee teaches wherein the encapsulation value is received with the set of identifiers (i.e. the encapsulation unit 155 reads tagging information from the VLAN port table 170 based on the VLAN ID, a linecard ID, and the output port ID, [0042]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an EVPN BGP extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute.
However, Brissette teaches the Ethernet AD per ES route by way of one of an EVPN BGP extended community or an EVPN BGP attribute (i.e. Border Gateway Protocol exchange) with the provider edge device an Ethernet virtual private network (EVPN) Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0013]). Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 11, LABONTE teaches receive a data packet associated with the at least one egress port (i.e. Packet forwarding logic 516 can use information in forwarding table 524 to perform standard forwarding lookup operations to identify an egress port on which to forward a received packet, [0042]); identify the VO queue created for the at least one egress port (i.e. the egress port can be one of the local ports 526 of switch unit 500. The egress port can be a port on another switch unit, [0042]); and store the data packet in the VO queue (i.e. packets can be enqueued on a virtual output queues via VOQ module 514 in order to pass the packet to the other switch unit, [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, LABONTE teaches wherein in response to receiving the data packet, determine an operational state of the at least one egress port (i.e. up/down state, this information indicates whether the port is UP (i.e., receiving/transmitting) packets, or DOWN (disabled), [0055]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 13, LABONTE teaches wherein the data packet is stored in the VO queue in response to determining that the at least one egress port is operational (i.e. information indicates whether the port is UP (i.e., receiving/transmitting) packets, [0058]).
Regarding claim 14, LABONTE teaches wherein in response to receiving the data packet and prior to storing the data packet in the VO queue, add one of the set of identifiers associated with the at least one egress port to a header of the data packet (i.e. the egress switch unit rewrites the ingress packet according to the rewrite index contained in the associated packet metadata. In some embodiments, for example, the rewrite actions can be stored in a table. The rewrite index contained in the packet metadata can be used to index into the table to access a set of one or more rewrite actions to be performed on the ingress packet. For example, a packet being IP routed, requires the Ethernet header in the packet to be rewritten with the MAC destination address of the next hop, including rewriting the source address with the MAC address of the destination, [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to receiving the data packet and prior to storing the data packet in the VO queue, add an encapsulation value associated with the at least one egress port to a header of the data packet.
However, LEE teaches wherein in response to receiving the data packet and prior to storing the data packet in the VO queue, add an encapsulation value associated with the at least one egress port to a header of the data packet (i.e. obtaining an output port identification (ID) and tagging information from metadata; reading maximum transmission unit (MTU) information from a port table corresponding to an output port; inserting, updating, or removing a tag according to a type of the packet; and if a size of the packet is smaller than the MTU size, writing an updated header of the packet in memory, claim 9). Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 16, LABONTE teaches receive a token for transmission of the stored data packet (i.e. a state collector module 108 can communicate with switch units 102 to collect state information from each switch, [0021]); and forward the data packet stored in the VO queue to the at least one network device (i.e. Switch units 102 can be configured with packet forwarding logic 116 to process ingress packets including enqueueing/dequeuing packets with the virtual output queues. Packet forwarding logic 116 in an ingress switch unit can process an ingress packet using forwarding information contained in its local copy of the global view to determine the port on which to forward the packet, [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, LABONTE teaches wherein the at least one egress port is one of a physical port or a logical port (i.e. the identified egress port is a physical port on the local switch unit, [0072]).
Regarding claim 19, LABONTE teaches a device, comprising: a processor; a network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (i.e. networking system 100 can include a network of switch units (packet engines, packet processing engines, and the like) 102 interconnected by communication fabric 104. The communication fabric can provide communication paths for forwarding packets among switch units, [0019]); at least one egress port; an egress queue associated with the at least one egress port (i.e. a set of virtual output queues (VOQs) associated with egress orts, [0022], [0045], [0055]-[0059]); and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (i.e. a computer subsystem having a CPU, a memory, and a storage device, [0032] and Digital processing units can include general CPUs that operate by way of executing computer program code stored on a non-volatile computer readable storage medium (e.g., read-only memory, ROM), [0070]), receive a data packet, wherein a header of the data packet comprises an identifier (i.e. virtual output queues allow the switch unit to send packets to specific ports on other switch units, [0045], a routing table lookup can be performed on the IP address to identify an egress port. As discussed above, in accordance with the present disclosure, the egress port can be on a separate switch unit, and can be identified by its system port ID, [0085], [0068, and [0072] and store, based on the identifier, the data packet with the one or more tags in the egress queue associated with the at least one egress port (i.e. the packet can be enqueued on a virtual output queue associated with that remote port which is then subsequently processed by the egress switch unit, [0022], [0068]-[0070]).
However, LABONTE does not explicitly disclose an encapsulation value; add one or more tags in the data packet based on the encapsulation value; determine one or more tagging operations to be performed, wherein an encapsulation value is indicative of the one or more tagging operations to be performed for transmission over each egress port; and broadcast the identifier, a state indicator, and the encapsulation value of each egress port;
However, Lee teaches an encapsulation value; add one or more tags in the data packet based on the encapsulation value (i.e. the encapsulation unit 155 inserts the tag if the tagging information of the port indicates a value 1, and does not insert the tag if the tagging information of the port does not indicate a value 1, [0042]); determine one or more tagging operations to be performed (i.e. determine whether to insert a tag into the packet, based on the tagging information of a port, [0042]), wherein an encapsulation value is indicative of the one or more tagging operations to be performed for transmission over each egress port (i.e. ] If the tagging information of the port indicates a value 1, the encapsulation unit 155 obtains the VLAN ID and a priority from the metadata, in operation S525. If the packet is untagged-format in operation S530, the tag is inserted into the packet in operation S535. If the packet is tagged-format in operation S530 and it is determined that the packet is a priority_tagged packet in operation S545, the encapsulation unit 155 updates the tag in operation S545. If the tagging information of the port does not indicate a value 1 in operation S520 and the packet is tagged-format in operation S550, the encapsulation unit 155 removes the tag in operation, [043]); and broadcast the identifier, a state indicator, and the encapsulation value of each egress port along (i.e. setting an output port identification (ID) obtained from the FDB table and tagging information obtained from the VLAN port table, to the metadata, [0010] and setting the default VLAN ID, the priority, and the port state information to the metadata, and transmits the packet, [0062]).
Based on LABONTE in view of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of LEE to the system of LABONTE in order to improve performance of an Ethernet switch, (LEE, [0006]).
However, LABONTE in view of LEE do not explicitly disclose a congestion management logic; an Ethernet AD per ES route.
However, Brissette teaches a congestion management logic (i.e. At the attachment circuits packets received thereat are normalized such that VLAN tags of the received packets match corresponding VLAN tags associated with logical interfaces of the cross-connect service, [0044]); an Ethernet AD per ES route (i.e. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (EAD) route, wherein the EVPN EAD route has an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI), [0034]).
Based on LABONTE in view of LEE and further in view of Brissette, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Brissette to the system of LABONTE and LEE in order to avoid traffic associated with a VPWS service tunnel may be unduly lost at an endpoint node of the service tunnel when there is a failure in the Ethernet segment, (Brissette, [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are similar to the limitations of claim 1, Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LABONTE et al. (US 20210273891) hereinafter LABONTE in view of LEE et al. (US 20100054251) hereinafter LEE and Brissette et al. (US 20180109400) hereinafter Brissette and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20050190779) hereinafter Hoffman.
Regarding claim 17, LABONTE in view of LEE and further in view of Brissette teach the limitations of claim 1 above.
However, LABONTE in view of LEE and further in view of Brissette do not explicitly disclose receive a delete indication, wherein the delete indication is configured to signal de-configuration of the at least one egress port; and delete, in response to the delete indication, the VO queue created for the at least one egress port.
However, Hoffman teaches receive a delete indication, wherein the delete indication is configured to signal de-configuration of the at least one egress port (i.e. a plurality of ports configured to receive incoming packets; a classification engine for making classifications for incoming packets; a memory that indicates whether a queue has already been allocated for a classification; and a processor for allocating the queue when the memory indicates that a queue has not already been allocated for the classification, [0022]); and delete, in response to the delete indication, the VO queue created for the at least one egress port (i.e. deletion of virtual output queues, [0012] and all memories associated with the de-allocated queues are updated at this time to indicate that the de-allocated queues are no longer associated with the old classifications, [0052]).
Based on LABONTE in view of LEE and Brissette and further in view of Hoffman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Hoffman to the system of LABONTE, LEE, and Brissette in order to have improved methods of switching packets within network devices (Hoffman, [0011]).
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 AYELE F WOLDEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5196. The examiner can normally be reached M_F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/AW/
AYELE F. WOLDEMARIAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2447
4/15/2026
/SURAJ M JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights