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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 12/23/2025 in which claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 and 15-20 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0093310 to Ye et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Cheng et al.
a. As per claim 1, Ye et al teaches a device, comprising: a processor (See paragraph [0122]); a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (See paragraph [0117]); and a packet routing logic, configured to: determine a host Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with a host device (See paragraph [0044]); generate a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known; establish a communication session with one or more network devices (See paragraph [0042-0043]); generate a first update message based on the host IP address (See paragraph [0044], if an ARP response corresponding to the ARP request is received (a source IP address of the ARP response is the IP address of the target host); and transmit the first update message to the one or more network devices (See paragraph [0044-0050]). Ye does not explicitly teach generate a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known.
Cheng et al teaches generate a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known (See paragraph [0023 and 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Cheng et al in the claim invention of Ye et al in order to distribute and receive routing information efficiently.
b. AS per claim 2, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein generating the first update message comprises: assigning a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address (See paragraph [0044], target host); and generating, based on assignment of the system port, the first update message indicative of the next hop interface (See paragraph [0072-0073 and 0111]).
c. As per claim 4, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: receive, through the system port, a data packet associated with the host device (See paragraph [0038-0039], packets to be sent to the target host) ; resolve a host Media Access Control (MAC) address associated with the host device (See paragraph [0068]); and transmit the data packet to the host device based on the host MAC address (See paragraph [0068-0070 and Table 1).
d. As per claim 5, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein resolving the host MAC address comprises: transmitting an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request to the host device (See paragraph [0042], an ARP request is sent to the target host); and receiving, from the host device, an ARP response indicative of the host MAC address (See paragraph [0068], the ARP information mainly includes… a Media Access Control (MAC) address).
e. As per claim 6, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: generate a second update message based on the host MAC address; and transmit the second update message to the one or more network devices (See paragraph [0070-0074]).
f. As per claim 7, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: configure a subnet comprising the host device; and assign a subnet IP address to the subnet (See paragraph [0070-0074]).
g. As per claim 8, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein the communication session is an internal Border Gateway Protocol (iBGP) session and the first update message and the second update message are iBGP update messages (See paragraph [0032-0033 and 0050-0052]).
h. As per claim 11, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Ye et al teaches wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: store at least one routing or forwarding table in the memory; and update the at least one routing or forwarding table based on one or more of: the host IP address, the host MAC address, the subnet IP address, or the system port (See paragraph [0037 and 0051]).
5. Claims 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,356319 to Devaraj et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Cheng et al.
a. As per claim 12, Devaraj et al teaches a device, comprising: a processor (See col. 15, lines 50-67); a memory communicatively coupled to the processor (See col. 15, lines 52-67]); and a packet routing logic, configured to: receive a first update message from a network device (See col. ; determine, based on the first update message, a next hop interface and an Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with a host device (See col. 6, lines 20-42); receive a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known; receive a data packet associated with the host device; identify an in-band system port of the network device indicated by the next hop interface (See col. 6, lines 53-65 and col. 12, 36-44); and transmit the data packet to the in-band system port of the network device (See col. 9, lines 6-20). However, Devaraj et al fails to teach receive a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known.
Zheng et al fails to teach receive a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to a determination that the host MAC address is known; assign a system port associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known (See paragraph [0023 and 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Cheng et al in the claim invention of Ye et al in order to distribute and receive routing information efficiently.
b. As per claim 13, Devaraj et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Devaraj et al teaches wherein the IP address is indicative of one or more of: a host IP address associated with the host device, or a subnet IP address associated with a subnet comprising the host device (See col. 6, lines 20-42 and col. 6, lines 42-65).
d. As per claim 17, Devaraj et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Devaraj et al teaches wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: store at least one routing or forwarding table in the memory (See col. 6, lines 20-42) ; and update the at least one routing or forwarding table based on one or more of: the host IP address, the host MAC address, the subnet IP address, or the in-band system port (See col. 6, lines 20-42).
e. As per claim 18, Devaraj et al teaches a method, comprising: determining a host Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with a host device (See col. 6, lines 20-42) ; assigning an in-band system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address (See col. 8, lines 4-22 and col. 9, lines 44-59); generating a first update message indicative of the host IP address and the next hop interface (See col. 9, lines 44-59); and transmitting the first update message to one or more network devices (See col. 12, lines 36-44); However, Devaraj et al fails to teach generating a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to determining that the host MAC address is known; and assigning a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known.
Zheng et al teaches a second update message indicative of the host IP address and a host Media Access Control (MAC) address in response to determining that the host MAC address is known; and assigning a system port as a next hop interface associated with the host IP address in response to determining that the host MAC address is not known (See paragraph [0023 and 0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Cheng et al in the claim invention of Ye et al in order to distribute and receive routing information efficiently.
f. As per claim 19, Devaraj et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Devaraj et al teaches receiving, through the in-band system port, a data packet associated with the host device from the one or more network devices (See col. 8, lines 4-22); transmitting an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) request to the host device; receiving, from the host device, an ARP response indicative of a host Media Access Control (MAC) address; and transmitting the data packet to the host device based on the host MAC address (See col. 6, lines 20-42).
g. As per claim 20, Devaraj et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Devaraj et al teaches transmitting the second update message to the one or more network devices (See col. 6, lines 20-65).
6. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0093310 to Ye et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Zheng et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0412485 to Sommers et al.
a. As per claim 3, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Li et al fails to teach wherein the system port is an in-band system port in communication with the one or more network devices through a disaggregated scheduled fabric.
Sommers et al teaches wherein the system port is an in-band system port in communication with the one or more network devices through a disaggregated scheduled fabric (See paragraph [0024 and 0039]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Sommers et al in the claimed invention of Ye et al in order to utilize the same data pathways for both user traffic and the network control plane communication.
7. Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0093310 to Ye et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Zheng et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0158913 to Dikshit et al.
a. As per claim 7, Ye et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Ye et al fails to teach wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: configure a subnet comprising the host device; and assign a subnet IP address to the subnet.
Dikshit et al wherein the packet routing logic is further configured to: configure a subnet comprising the host device; and assign a subnet IP address to the subnet (See paragraph [0018, 0024 and 0036]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Dikshit et al in the claimed invention of Ye et al in order to efficiently programming routes in forwarding hardware of network devices in a multi-fabric overlay network.
8. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0093310 to Ye et al U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Zheng et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of in view of U.S. Patent No. 2017/0093703 to Natu et al.
a. As per claims 9, Ye et al fails to explicitly teach wherein the first update message is an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) Route Type 5 message indicative of one or more of: the subnet IP address or the host IP address.
Natu et al teaches wherein the first update message is an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) Route Type 5 message indicative of one or more of: the subnet IP address or the host IP address (See paragraph [0033 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Natu et al in the claimed invention of Ye et al in order to specify routing instance.
b. As per claims 10, Ye et al in view of Natu et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Ye et al fails to teach wherein the second update message is an EVPN Route Type 2 message indicative of one or more of: the host MAC address or the host IP address.
Natu et al teaches wherein the second update message is an EVPN Route Type 2 message indicative of one or more of: the host MAC address or the host IP address (See paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Natu et al in the claimed invention of Ye et al in order to specify routing instances.
9. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,356319 to Devaraj et al in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0334011 to Zheng et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2017/0093703 to Natu et al.
a. As per claim 15, Devaraj et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Devaraj et al fails to explicitly teach wherein the first update message is an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) Route Type 5 message indicative of one or more of: the subnet IP address or the host IP address.
Natu et al teaches wherein the first update message is an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) Route Type 5 message indicative of one or more of: the subnet IP address or the host IP address (See paragraph [0033 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Natu et al in the claimed invention of Devaraj et al in order to specify routing instance.
b. As per claim 16, Devaraj et al in view of Natu et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Devaraj et al fails to teach wherein the second update message is an EVPN Route Type 2 message indicative of one or more of: the host MAC address or the host IP address.
Natu et al teaches wherein the second update message is an EVPN Route Type 2 message indicative of one or more of: the host MAC address or the host IP address (See paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Natu et al in the claimed invention of Devaraj et al in order to specify routing instances.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444