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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 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. The new ground of rejection is found Filsfils et al. (US 10,924,399) cited on PTO-892 dated May 27, 2026.
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.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psenak et al. (US 2020/0322254, IDS Reference) in view of Filsfils et al. (US 10,924,399).
Regarding claim 1, Psenak et al. disclose a first network device (Figure 1, any of nodes N1-N4; Figure 5, computer system 500) comprising:
One or more processors (Figure 5, processor 502) to:
Advertise, to one or more network devices, information associated with a flexible algorithm (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230), wherein the information comprises an identifier associated with the flexible algorithm (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230); and
Receive network traffic associated with the flexible algorithm based on the advertising information (Paragraphs 51-52 and figure 4, winning FAD is selected/determined in either of steps 450 and 460, the winning FAD being used to determine a data transmission route through the network).
Psenak et al. do not disclose the following limitations disclosed by Filsfils et al.: wherein the information comprises an address associated with the first network device (Filsfils et al., Figures 3A and 4A, Column 6 line 66-column 7 line 8, Column 8 lines 49-67, advertisement 311/410 comprising source address of source node A:: 301/401, which is sending the advertisement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Psenak et al. with the cited disclosure from Filsfils et al. in order to provide continuous advertisement and exchange of routing information including segment routing information for continuous updates (Filsfils et al., Column 5 lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 2, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the one or more processors are to: calculate a least-cost path according to an Intradomain Gateway Protocol (IGP) for transmitting the network traffic (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 3, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the information identifies one or more of: a type of metric associated with calculating a least cost path, a calculation type associated with calculating a least cost path, or one or more constraints associated with calculating a least cost path (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 4, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the one or more processors are to: determine a cost to transmit the network traffic according to the flexible algorithm (Paragraph 36, path cost calculations).
Regarding claim 5, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the one or more processors, to advertise the information associated with the flexible algorithm, are to: advertise one or more flex-algorithm definitions (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230).
Regarding claim 6, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the first network device utilizes a shortest path first routing protocol (Paragraph 19, The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol).
Regarding claim 8, Psenak et al. disclose a method comprising:
Advertising, by a network device, information associated with a flexible algorithm (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230),
Receiving, by the network device, network traffic associated with the flexible algorithm based on the advertising information (Paragraphs 51-52 and figure 4, winning FAD is selected/determined in either of steps 450 and 460, the winning FAD being used to determine a data transmission route through the network).
Psenak et al. do not disclose the following limitations disclosed by Filsfils et al.: wherein the information comprises an address associated with the first network device (Filsfils et al., Figures 3A and 4A, Column 6 line 66-column 7 line 8, Column 8 lines 49-67, advertisement 311/410 comprising source address of source node A:: 301/401, which is sending the advertisement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Psenak et al. with the cited disclosure from Filsfils et al. in order to provide continuous advertisement and exchange of routing information including segment routing information for continuous updates (Filsfils et al., Column 5 lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 10, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the network device is a router (Paragraph 22, one or more nodes 130 include data terminal equipment such as routers; Paragraph 41, IGP flexible algorithm may be advertised by an ISIS router or an OSPF router).
Regarding claim 11, Psenak et al. disclose calculating a least-cost path according to an Intradomain Gateway Protocol (IGP) for transmitting the traffic (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 12, Psenak et al. disclose determining a cost to transmit traffic according to the flexible algorithm (Paragraph 36, path cost calculations).
Regarding claim 14, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the flexible algorithm includes information that identifies one or more of: a type of metric associated with calculating a least cost path, or a calculation type associated with calculating a least cost path (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 15, Psenak et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions (Figure 5 and paragraphs 56-57, instructions stored in memory 504 or storage 506 and executed by processor 502) comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Figure 5 and paragraphs 56-57, instructions stored in memory 504 or storage 506 and executed by processor 502) of a first network device (Figure 1, any of nodes N1-N4; Figure 5, computer system 500) to:
Advertise, to one or more network devices, information associated with a flexible algorithm (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230);
wherein the information comprises an identifier associated with the flexible algorithm (Figure 4 and paragraph 49, a network element receives FADs from other network elements of a network; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230; Abstract, flexible algorithm definition [FAD]; Paragraph 19, a FAD includes calculation-type, a metric-type and a set of constraints for path/route computation; Paragraphs 41-42, network elements 120 of figure 1 advertise IGP flexible algorithm 210, which includes a flex-algorithm 230); and
Receive network traffic associated with the flexible algorithm based on the advertising information(Paragraphs 51-52 and figure 4, winning FAD is selected/determined in either of steps 450 and 460, the winning FAD being used to determine a data transmission route through the network).
Psenak et al. do not disclose the following limitations disclosed by Filsfils et al.: wherein the information comprises an address associated with the first network device (Filsfils et al., Figures 3A and 4A, Column 6 line 66-column 7 line 8, Column 8 lines 49-67, advertisement 311/410 comprising source address of source node A:: 301/401, which is sending the advertisement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Psenak et al. with the cited disclosure from Filsfils et al. in order to provide continuous advertisement and exchange of routing information including segment routing information for continuous updates (Filsfils et al., Column 5 lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 16, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first network device to: determine a cost to transmit traffic according to the flexible algorithm (Paragraph 36, path cost calculations).
Regarding claim 17, Psenak et al. in view of Filsfils et al. disclose wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first network device to: transmit, using the address, the network traffic (Filsfils et al., Figures 3A and 4A, source address - A::) based on a route path having a least-cost according to the flexible algorithm (Psenak et al., Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 18, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the one or more instructions further cause the first network device to: calculate a least-cost path according to an Intradomain Gateway Protocol (IGP) for the traffic (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 19, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the information identifies one or more of: a type of metric associated with calculating a least cost path, or a calculation type associated with calculating a least cost path (Paragraph 19, System 100 supports the usage of attestation procedures with IGP flexible algorithm technology. The IGP may be an OSPF routing protocol, an ISIS routing protocol, and the like. A FAD includes the following: (a) a calculation-type, (b) a metric-type; and (c) a set of constraints. Many possible constraints may be used to compute a path over one or more network elements 120 of network 110; Paragraph 36, based on path cost).
Regarding claim 20, Psenak et al. disclose wherein the information identifies a protocol as being an Intradomain Gateway Protocol (IGP) (Paragraph 41, IGP flexible algorithm may be advertised by an ISIS router or an OSPF router. Format 200 of IGP Flexible Algorithm 210 includes a type 220, a length 225, a flex-algorithm 230, a metric-type 235, a calc-type 240, a priority 245, a sub-TLV 250, and a sub-TLV value 255. Type 220 indicates the type of IGP flexible algorithm).
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Psenak et al. in view of Filsfils et al. as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Bashandy et al. (US 10,270,664).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Psenak et al. in view of Filsfils et al. disclose the claimed invention above but do not disclose the following limitations disclosed by Bashandy et al.: wherein the address is a loopback address (Bashandy et al., Column 4 lines 36-42, nodal-segment IDs are mapped to respective node loopback prefix IP addresses. One of ordinary skill understands that node loopback prefix IP addresses (node prefixes for short) distinguish the SR nodes from each other within the provider network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Psenak et al. and Filfils et al. with the cited disclosure from Bashandy et al. in order to distinguish SR node from each other within the network (Bashandy et al., Column 4 lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 21, Psenak et al. in view of Filsfils et al. disclose the claimed invention as well as showing that the source address in the advertisement packet is also a destination address or included in the segment list of the response packet 312/440 in figures 3A and 4A respectively of Filsfils et al.
While the address receives the response packet in Filfils et al., Psenak et al. and Filfils et al. do specifically disclose that the address is designated to receive traffic associated with the flexible algorithm. However, Bashandy et al. discloses a loopback addressing mapped to a SR node that is used by protocols such as open shortest path first (OSPF) or intermediate system to intermediate system (IS-IS), or modifications thereof, operating in the control plan of an SR node to identify egress interfaces for shortest paths (SPTs) to respective SR nodes (Bashandy, Column 4 lines 36-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Psenak et al. and Filfils et al. with the cited disclosure from Bashandy et al. in order to distinguish SR node from each other within the network (Bashandy et al., Column 4 lines 40-42).
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 OTIS L THOMPSON, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Chirag G. Shah can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/OTIS L THOMPSON, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights