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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klous (US 20210385126), in view of Tatlicioglu (US 20180006833).
For claim 1, Klous discloses:
A method implemented by a network device of a network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a server within the network, a first probe comprising first information associated with the server, the first information including one or more first prefixes (par. 0032 and 0033: “…the [network] topology [maintained by controller 108] can be updated based on advertisements (e.g., LLDP messages) transmitted throughout the internal network 102.”);
storing, in memory of the network device, the first information in association with the server (par. 0032: “The controller 108 and/or the load balancer 110 may maintain (e.g., store) a topology of the internal network 102.”).
Klous fails to teach “generating, based on the first information, an advertisement indicating reachability of the server; and advertising the reachability of the server to one or more other network devices, the advertisement including the one or more first prefixes”.
However, in a related field, Tatlicioglu discloses switches receiving LLDP packets periodically sent by a controller. Each of the switches will broadcast (i.e., retransmit) the received LLDP from all its active ports (par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to have introduced Tatlicioglu’s teachings alongside Klous. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute updated topology information to network entities (Tatlicioglu, par. 0032 and 0045).
For claim 4, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first prefixes comprise one or more of: an IPv6 prefix; an IPv4 prefix; an SRv6 Locator; or one or more SRv6 SIDs associated with one or more virtual machines, applications, or containers executing on the server (Klous, par. 0041: IPv4 and IPV6 addressing within network disclosed; par. 0033: Controller updates topology based on received LLDP messages)
For claim 6, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from one or more second servers, one or more second probes comprising one or more second prefixes (Klous, par. 0032 and 0033: “…the [network] topology [maintained by controller 108] can be updated based on advertisements (e.g., LLDP messages) transmitted throughout the internal network 102.”);
aggregating the one or more first prefixes and the one or more second prefixes to create aggregated prefixes (Klous, par. 0034: A network node determines/generates LLDP message containing identity and that of neighbor nodes); and
generating the advertisement, wherein the advertisement comprises at least a portion of the aggregated prefixes (Klous, par. 0034: “An example network node participating in LLDP may generate…LLDP messages that advertise the node's identity (e.g., an address of the node), capabilities, and neighbor nodes.”).
For claims 8 and 17, Klous discloses:
A system comprising:
one or more processors (par. 0106); and
one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (par. 0112), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
determining, by a server, one or more prefixes associated with the server (par. 0034: A network node determines/generates LLDP message containing identity and that of neighbor nodes);
generating, by the server, a probe comprising information associated with the server, the information including the one or more prefixes (par. 0034: “An example network node participating in LLDP may generate…LLDP messages that advertise the node's identity (e.g., an address of the node), capabilities, and neighbor nodes.”); and
sending, by the server, the probe to a first network device and a second network device (par. 0034: The network node transmits LLDP message that advertises its identity, capabilities and neighbor nodes).
Klous fails to teach sending “based on a time interval” and “wherein the first network device and the second network device redistribute the information”. However, in a related field, Tatlicioglu discloses a controller periodically sending and LLDP packet to each switch connected therewith. The receiving switches further re-broadcast the LLDP packet for all of their active ports (par. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to have introduced Tatlicioglu’s teachings alongside Klous. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute updated topology information to connected network entities (Tatlicioglu, par. 0032 and 0045).
For claim 9, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the probe is a link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) probe (Klous, par. 0034: LLDP message contains identity and that of neighbor nodes).
For claims 11 and 20, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more prefixes are encoded as a block of prefixes within the probe (Klous, par. 0034: “An example network node participating in LLDP may generate…LLDP messages that advertise the node's identity (e.g., an address of the node), capabilities, and neighbor nodes.”).
For claims 13 and 18, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the one or more prefixes comprise one or more of an IPv6 prefix, an IPv4 prefix, or an SRv6 Locator (Klous, par. 0034: Node LLDP messages and databases include node’s identity, i.e., and address, capabilities, and neighbor nodes; Klous, par. 0041: IPv4 and IPv6 addressing disclosed).
For claim 15, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more prefixes comprise identifiers associated with one or more applications, virtual machines, or containers executing on the server (Klous, par. 0034: “An example network node participating in LLDP may generate…LLDP messages that advertise the node's identity (e.g., an address of the node), capabilities, and neighbor nodes.”).
For claim 16, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the first network device comprises a top of rack router that is configured to redistribute the one or more prefixes using one or more routing protocols of the network (Tatlicioglu, par. 0045: switches receive LLDP packets periodically sent by a controller. Each of the switches will broadcast (i.e., retransmit) the received LLDP from all its active ports).
To the extent Tatlicioglu fails to explicitly disclose “top of rack router”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill apprised in the art and disclosures relied upon therein, to have contemplated use of “top of rack router” to redistribute prefixes receiving from other networking entities. The motivation would have been to ensure current topology data is possessed by all routing/entities within a network.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klous (US 20210385126), in view of Tatlicioglu (US 20180006833), in view of Ward (USP 7710899).
For claim 5, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose ”further comprising:
determining that a second probe has not been received from the server and that a time period associated with the server has expired; and
updating the memory of the network device to remove the one or more first prefixes.”
However, in a related field, Ward discloses a networking entity deleting “stale” routing data as well as any time-out peers. Furthermore, applicable updates are sent to peers regarding BGP updates (col 8, ll 3-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to have introduced Ward’s teachings alongside the combination. The motivation to combine would have been to distribute updated topology information to connected network entities for best path determination (Ward, abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klous (US 20210385126), in view of Tatlicioglu (US 20180006833), in view of Selvaraj (US 20190190811).
For claim 7, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The method of claim 1, but fails to disclose “wherein advertising comprises redistributing the advertisement via a routing protocol of the network, the routing protocol comprising border gateway protocol (BGP), open shortest path first (OSPF), or intermediate system to intermediate system (ISIS).”
However, in a related field, Selvaraj discloses conveyance of LLDP advertisement and BGP configuration information between routers (par. 0062 and Fig 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to have introduced Selvaraj teachings alongside the combination. The motivation to combine would have been to automatically update network topology among network entities (Selvaraj, par. 0003).
Claims 10, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klous (US 20210385126), in view of Tatlicioglu (US 20180006833), in view of Sharma (US 20190132199).
For claims 10 and 19, Klous-Tatlicioglu discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the probe comprises a LLDP probe (Klous, par. 0034: LLDP message contains identity and that of neighbor nodes).
Klous-Tatlicioglu fails to disclose “and generating the probe further comprises adding a TLV field to the probe, the TLV field including a TLV type, a TLV length, a unique identifier, a hold timer, and the one or more prefixes.”
However, in a related field, Sharma discloses LLDP message containing multiple TLV containers. Each of these containers include “type”, “length” and “value” fields (par. 0041 and 0042). Furthermore, Sharma contemplates “custom” use of containers for including additional fields such as unique organizationally identifier field, a “subtype” field and “data” field (par. 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before effective filing date of the instant claimed invention to have introduced Sharma’s teachings alongside Klous-Tatlicioglu. The motivation to combine would have been to utilize well-known LLDP containers provisioning in order to convey routing/configurations TLV values within a network (Sharma, par. 0046).
To extent Sharma fails to explicitly disclose “a hold timer”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated a “custom” field to govern expiration/freshness of data in a probe message. The motivation would have been to ensure currency of LLDP/routing data stored in node/MIB databases.
For claim 12, Klous-Tatlicioglu-Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein generating the probe further comprises adding a TLV field to the probe, the TLV field comprising metadata associated with applications or containers corresponding to the one or more prefixes (Sharma, par. 0041 and 0042: LLDP message containing multiple TLV containers. Each of these containers include “type”, “length” and “value” fields).
For claim 14, Klous-Tatlicioglu-Sharma discloses:
The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, by the server, a new prefix associated with a new container, a new virtual machine, or a new application running on the server; and generating, by the server, a second probe comprising second information, the second information including the new prefix (Sharma, par. 0041 and 0042: Each of these containers include “type”, “length” and “value” fields; (Klous, par. 0034: “An example network node participating in LLDP may generate…LLDP messages that advertise the node's identity (e.g., an address of the node), capabilities, and neighbor nodes.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-3801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CLAYTON R WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443