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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claim 8 to recite, in part:
“receiving a NTDU from a client device, the NTDU having a header including at least one source address, at least one destination address, and a virtual local area network (VLAN) tag”.
The office notes that the specification does not disclose reception of an NTDU from a client device that includes a header comprising at least one source address, at least one destination address, and a virtual local area network tag. For example, fig.2 and par.[0035] recites:
“a NTDU is received by a WAP from a client device.” This describes the NTDU being sent from a client device to an access point.
Par.[0036] “In step 202, the NTDU is analyzed to determine whether to: (i) transmit the NTDU to a local device (see e.g., FIG. 1, 104) or (ii) to transmit the NTDU to a network device via a virtual tunnel. The analysis about whether to select option (i) or (ii) may be performed using at least a portion of the contents of a header of the NTDU. For example, the WAP may use the source internet protocol (IP) address, the destination IP address, a tag within the header of the NTDU, any other portion of the header of the NTDU, or any combination thereof to make the aforementioned determination”. This describes making a determination on how to forward the NTDU based on the contents of the header of the NTDU, wherein a tag, “not a VLAN tag” can be included.
Par.[0037] “(b) that the NTDU should be tagged with an appropriate VLAN tag and then sent via a physical network interface to a local device”. In this, the client device sends the packet to the AP, the AP can tag the packet, the client device does not send a packet which is already tagged. See, “that the NTDU should be tagged with an appropriate VLAN tag and then sent”.
It is clear from the applicants originally filed disclosure that the client device does not send a packet which has a tag in the header, instead, the tag is added at the AP, and then sent as discussed in par.[0037].
Additionally, claim 1 recites, in part:
“receiving a NTDU from a client device, the NTDU having a header including at least one source address, at least one destination address, and a tag that is separate from the at least one source and destination address”.
As discussed above, the client device does not send to the AP an packet NTDU including a tag. While par.[0036] recites, in part:
“For example, the WAP may use the source internet protocol (IP) address, the destination IP address, a tag within the header of the NTDU”
This does not recite, that the header includes the tag when it is sent from the client to the AP. Par.[0037] confirms this assertion when it recites, in part:
“Continuing with the discussion of step 202, the analysis may use the aforementioned contents of the header of the NTDU in order to determine: (a) that the NTDU should be sent via a physical network interface to a local device; (b) that the NTDU should be tagged with an appropriate VLAN tag and then sent via a physical network interface to a local device;”.
Clearly, the discussion concerning the tag revolves around a VLAN tag, and whether or not the AP should append a VLAN tag to the packet, and send the packet through the tunnel. The client does not send a packet with a tag or a VLAN tag in the header to the AP.
Other paragraphs throughout the specification confirm this assertion as well. For example, par.[0024] recites, in part:
“The local devices include functionality to receive NTDUs with or without virtual local area network (VLAN) tags from the WAP (102).”
Par.[0041] “Though not shown in FIG. 2, if the NTDU is to be transmitted to a local device, then the NTDU is transmitted (with or without a VLAN tag) to the local device.”.
Par.[0048] “In step 308, the network device bridges the NTDU towards the NTDU destination. In one embodiment of the invention, the NTDU is bridged to a locally connected network device without a VLAN tag. In another embodiment of the invention, the NTDU is bridged to a locally connected computing device once a VLAN tag is added to the NTDU.”
It is clear that a tag, VLAN tag or otherwise is appended to the packet at the network device or AP, and is not sent from the client device with a tag or VLAN tag in the header as claimed, and the claims are rejected.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim claims 1, 8, and 15, and for failing to cure the deficiencies therein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 15, 17, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2012/0027002 A1) in view of Hori et al. (US 2004/0063458 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Jones discloses:
a method in a wireless access point (WAP) (fig.1 element 100 depicts Wireless Access Points) for processing network traffic data units (NTDUs) (par.[0032] describes the AP receiving a packet originating from a source client device that is destined for a destination client device), comprising the WAP (fig.1 the aforecited Access Points - 100):
receiving a NTDU from a client device (par.[0009] describes a client device transmitting to the WAP ) the NTDU having a header (par.[0032] which describes packets including a header) a tag that is separate from the at least one source and destination addresses (par.[0032] which describes the SSID which is separate from a source and destination address);
identifying a virtual tunnel upon which to transmit the NTDU based on a portion of the header of the NTDU (par.[0009] describes the SSID in the header of the packet which allows the AP to forward the packet to the correct VPN tunnels) according to a policy (par.[0065] describes the table, which is interpreted as a policy, wherein the SSID are mapped to VPN Tunnels), wherein the policy maps the portion of the header to one of a plurality of available virtual tunnels (par.[0065] as discussed above, wherein the table allows the AP to map SSID to VPN Tunnels); and
transmitting, via the identified virtual tunnel (as discussed above the VPN Tunnels, interpreted as a virtual tunnel. Thus, when the AP receives the packet with the header comprising the SSID, as discussed above, the AP is capable of locating the appropriate tunnel associated with the SSID, and forward the packet via the tunnel.), the NTDU to a network device (see fig.1 endpoints),
wherein the portion of the header comprises the tag and the policy maps a first tag to a first virtual tunnel of the available virtual tunnels, and a second tag to a second virtual tunnel of the available virtual tunnels (as discussed above with regard to fig.1 and par.[0009, 0065] the AP is capable of utilizing a table which is used for mapping an SSID to a Tunnel, such that the tag as claimed correspond to different tunnels).
While the disclosure of Jones substantially discloses the claimed invention it may not disclose:
The NTDU having a header including at least one source address, at least one destination address, and a tag.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Hori teaches:
the NTDU having a header including at least one source address, at least one destination address, and a tag (par.[0048] which recites, in part, “More specifically, when a packet is transmitted from an ST(SA) 10-S to an ST(DA) 10-D via the general-purpose AP(BSSID) 20 in the infrastructure network 31, "BSSID/SA/DA" is inserted as address information in the header when the packet is transmitted from the ST(SA) 10-S to the general-purpose AP(BSSID) 20,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosure of Jones forwarding a packet via tunnel utilizing a tag with the disclosure of Hori which teaches having a tag, source, and destination in the header. The motivation/suggestion would have been that in order to a packet to be transmitted to the appropriate destination information in the header such as source, destination, or an tag/ID is useful for selecting an appropriate path which is conventional in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Jones discloses:
wherein the policy is a look-up table (par.[0065] describes the table, interpreted as a lookup table).
Regarding claims 3, and 17, Jones discloses:
establishing a second virtual tunnel between the WAP and a second network device, wherein the network device is associated with a layer-2 domain, wherein the second network device is associated with a second layer-2 domain (fig.1 which depicts the AP providing layer-2 connection with multiple endpoints wherein the endpoints are layer-2 devices, par.[0008] describes ethernet).
Regarding claims 6, and 20, Jones discloses:
wherein the plurality of available virtual tunnels connect the WAP to a plurality of network devices (fig.1 depicts the WAP tunnels connect the WAP to a plurality of network endpoints, which are interpreted as network devices).
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Hori as applied to claim 1, in view of Arista “VXLAN Pseudowire”, dated July 2016, submitted in the IDS dated 09/15/2021 of application 17/131,544.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the disclosure Jones and Hori discloses a wireless access point configured to encapsulate a service frame for layer-3 transmission of layer-2 frames and particular the disclosure teaches encapsulating service frames in VXLAN frames. However, the disclosure of Jones and Hori does not teach:
VXLAN Pseudowire.
However, the VXLAN Pseudowire was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application. For example, in an analogous art, the disclosure of Zanier Arista discloses:
VXLAN Pseudowire (pg.2 which describes the VXLAN Pseudowire).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Jones and Hori for encapsulation of service frames from one point to another utilizing tunnels with the disclosure of Arista Pseudowire. The motivation/suggestion would have been to reduce the complexity for providing connectivity for PTP over a layer 3 connection.
Claim(s) 5, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Hori as applied to independent claim 1, in view of Gu (US 2015/0082418 A1).
Regarding claims 5, and 19, Jones and Hori teaches the forwarding of packets over a path based on a header of a data frame that is transmitted from a client station, and encapsulation of the packet for transmission over the network based on the identified destination, but may not disclose:
wherein the identified virtual tunnel is a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) tunnel.
In an analogous art the disclosure of Gu teaches:
wherein the identified virtual tunnel is a virtual extensible local area network (VXLAN) tunnel (par.[0004] describes VXLAN, Virtual Tunnel Endpoints, and the tunnels which connect Layer-2 Domains over layer-3 networks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Jones and Hori with the disclosure Gu. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for the connection of layer-2 domains over a layer-3 network.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones and Hori as applied to claim 1, in view of Zhang (US 2014/0146817 A1).
Regarding claims 7, the disclosure of Jones and Hori teaches the transmission of a packet by a wireless access point via a tunnel endpoint to a destination, but does not disclose:
wherein the network device encapsulates the NTDU for transmission within a layer-2 domain of the network device.
However, the above technique was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. For example, in an analogous art, the disclosure of Zhang teaches:
wherein the network device encapsulates the NTDU for transmission within a layer-2 domain of the network device (par.[0023] describes the end point receiving the packet over the layer 3 network, and further encapsulating the packet for transmission to a VM in the same VXLAN domain, same layer-2 domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Jones and Hori, with the disclosure of Zhang. The motivation/suggestion would have been to efficiently and correctly forward a packet to its destination.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, along with each of the dependent claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nomi (US 2016/0248601 A1) “Communication Apparatus and Communication Method”
Lino (US 2008/0069024 A1) “Communication System, Wireless LAN Base Station Controller, and Wireless LAN Base Station Device”
Hepting et al. (US 8,804,732 B1) “Methods and Apparatus for Separate Control and Data Planes in a Wireless Network”
Jiang et al. (US 2014/0269285 A1) “Apparatus, System and Method for Load Balancing Traffic to an Access Point Across Multiple Physical Ports”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights