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 .
2. This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/10/2024 where claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37CFR 1.97.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 07/10/2024. These drawing are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14-17, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramachandran et al (US 9794148 B1) hereinafter Rama
As the claim 1. Rama teaches a node in a Segment Routing network, ([column 5] Fig. 1, lines 1-6,, segment routing network)
the node comprising circuitry configured to: ([column 16] Fig. 3, line 7-13, Master microprocessor 52 executing kernel 70 programs and may comprise one or more general- or special-purpose processors such as a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA))
determine local protection in effect at the node, ([column 8]Fig. 1, lines 19-22, router 12B to determine a different node-protecting backup out-segment that router 12B can use if router 12C is bypassed altogether )
and advertise information based on the local protection via extensions in a routing protocol associated with the Segment Routing network, ([column 6] Fig. 1, lines 15-33, adjacency label advertised by node X to reach node Y over interface i, shortest path MPLS LSP may be a segment that terminates on a node and is called “Node Segment Identifier” or node-SID, Segment routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF protocols specify how a router advertises adjacency labels).
wherein the information includes identity of protected elements ([column 6] Fig. 1, lines 15-33, router advertise adjacency label, an MPLS data plane, adj-SID or adjacency label may simply be an MPLS label. A node that desires to explicitly route a packet can attach a stack of adjacency labels to that packet, each label representing an adj-SID)
and a type of the local protection. ([column 17]Fig. 1, Fig. 3, lines 1-8, the request may define which routers for which router 12B will provide node protection and/or parameters that specify node protection and/or the type of node protection).
Claims 10, and 19 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
As the claim 5. Rama teaches wherein the routing protocol is an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) with the extensions therein. ([column 4] Fig. 1, lines 40-45, a defined routing protocol, such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP))
Claim 14 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
As the claim 6. Rama teaches wherein the routing protocol is Border Gateway Protocol Link-State advertisement (BGP-LS) with the extensions therein. ([column 15] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, lines 7-37, SPRING 65, router 12B forwards packets using node and adjacency labels ; “Segment Routing Egress Peer Engineering BGPLS Extensions,”)
Claim 15 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As the claim 7 Rama teaches , wherein the information further includes one or more Segment Identifiers (SIDs). ([column 6] lines 14-17, A shortest path MPLS LSP may be a segment that terminates on a node and is called “Node Segment Identifier” or node-SID. Segment routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF protocols specify how a router advertises adjacency labels. Segment routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF protocols specify how a router advertises adjacency labels. )
Claim 16 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7.
As the claim 8. Rama teaches wherein the one or more SIDs are a list for a backup path. ([column 10] Fig. 1, Fig. 2, An merge point MP may be a router where the backup path terminates. The backup path may be an RSVP LSP, or an LSP based on a SPRING label stack generated from a context table, in accordance with techniques of this disclosure, if router 12B offered node protection to adj-SID I(2, 3) used by router 12B to reach router 12C, then the merge point would be router 12D if the next label in the label stack is adj-SID I(3, 4) used by router 12C to reach router 12D.)
Claim 17is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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) 2-4, 11-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rama and further in view of Vasseur et al. (US 20060153067 A1)hereinafter Vasseur
As the claim 2. Rama does not teach wherein the identity includes an address and the protected elements include links or nodes in the Segment Routing network.
Vasseur teaches wherein the identity includes an address and the protected elements include links or nodes in the Segment Routing network. ([0053] [0060]Fig. 1, Fig. 5, IGP Advertisement in the form of an IS-IS Link State Packet which include type/length/value (TLV) encoded formats to convey information, cost of the path A-B connecting node A to node B is "6" (such as via ABR1 of FIG. 1), and the cost of the link(s) from B to the reachable address IP1 is "1." A destination address field 512 of entry 510N contains the reachable address IP1, and the next-hop fields 514, 516, are populated with, e.g., link A-ABR1 and a loopback address of node ABRI, respectively.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Vasseur with the teaching of Rama because Vasseur teaches that creating a backup tunnel between a protecting router and a merge point, would provide Fast Reroute protection of the border router that requires minimal configuration and avoids the deployment of backup tunnels from every neighbor in different domain of protected border routers. (Vasseur [0026])
Claims 11 and 20 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
As the claim 3. Rama does not teach , wherein the type includes one of node, link, and Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG).
Vasseur teaches , wherein the type includes one of node, link, and Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG). ([0020] where "backup tunnels" are created to bypass a protected network device (e.g., links, shared risk link groups (SRLGs), and nodes))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Vasseur with the teaching of Rama because Vasseur teaches that creating a backup tunnel between a protecting router and a merge point, would provide Fast Reroute protection of the border router that requires minimal configuration and avoids the deployment of backup tunnels from every neighbor in different domain of protected border routers. (Vasseur [0026])
Claim 12 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
As the claim 4. Rama does not teach wherein the routing protocol is Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) with the extensions therein.
Vasseur teaches wherein the routing protocol is Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) with the extensions therein. ([0055] TE-LSPs are created using any available tunnel establishment protocols, such as explicit path or PCE-based path computation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Vasseur with the teaching of Rama because Vasseur teaches that creating a backup tunnel between a protecting router and a merge point, would provide Fast Reroute protection of the border router that requires minimal configuration and avoids the deployment of backup tunnels from every neighbor in different domain of protected border routers. (Vasseur [0026])
Claim 13 is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rama and further in view of Bidgoli et al. (US 20210144086 A1)hereinafter Bidgoli
As the claim 9. Rama does not teach wherein the one or more SIDs include a Binding SID (BSID) for a local backup path.
Bidgoli teaches wherein the one or more SIDs include a Binding SID (BSID) for a local backup path. ([0005] the protection path configuration information is provided to the second node of the primary path. the protection path configuration information comprises a description of the protection path and a mapping of the protection path to the identifier; the identifier comprises a Binding Segment Identifier (BSID))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teaching of Bidgoli with the teaching of Rama because Bidgoli teaches that providing protection path would enables traffic to continue to be forwarded in a traffic engineered manner which it might otherwise have been rerouted over non-preferred protection paths.(Bidgoli [0058])
Claim 18is/are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vadera; Atul [US 20210111991 A1] Label Switched Path (LSP) protection across multiple domains of a Segment Routing (SR) network
Lazzeri; Francesco et al. [US 10757012 B2] Path computation in a segment routing network
Filsfils; Clarence et al. [US 20140269727 A1] FAST REROUTE FOR SEGMENT ROUTING TRAFFIC
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATIQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 7:30 PM M-F Eastern.
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, Un Cho can be reached at 5712727919. 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.
/ATIQUE AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights