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 5/26/26 in which claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11 and 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 9-11, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0019614 to Rahman et al in view of U.S Publication No. 2015/0109904 to Filsfils et al.
a. As per claim 1, Rahman et al teaches sending method, applied to a first node, wherein the method comprises: determining first link information, wherein the first link information indicates a link from the first node to a second node (See paragraph [0014, 0035]);
receiving a first packet from the second node, wherein the first packet comprises second link information and first indication information, the second link information indicates a link from the second node to the first node (See paragraph [0006, 0012, 0030], BFD verifies connectivity between two devices based on the rapid transmission of BFD control packets between the two devices), and the first indication information indicates that the second link information is to-be-checked link information (See paragraph [0034-0035], Router A may transmit a BFD message to router B, and router A verifies connectivity based on a response/non-response from router B, e.g., within a particular time period)); and checking the first link information and the second link information based on the first indication information See paragraph [0035], BFD services (or process) 244 contain computer executable instructions executed by processor 220 to verify connectivity between two systems/devices, depending on the transmission of BFD control packets ("BFD messages") between the two devices). However, Rahman et al fails to explicitly teaches wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol (BGP) update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet.
Filsfils et al teaches wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol (BGP) update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet (See paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the to incorporate the teaching of Filsfils et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to advertise and propagate existing BGP message.
b. As per claim 11, Rahman et al teaches a network device applied to a first node, wherein the network device comprises: one or more memories configured to store instructions (See paragraph [0032]); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute the instructions (See paragraph [0032]), wherein execution of the instructions causes the network device to: determine first link information, wherein the first link information indicates a link from the first node to a second node (See paragraph [0014, 0034-0035]); receive a first packet from the second node, wherein the first packet comprises second link information and first indication information, the second link information indicates a link from the second node to the first node (See paragraph [0006, 0012, 0030], BFD verifies connectivity between two devices based on the rapid transmission of BFD control packets between the two devices), and the first indication information indicates that the second link information is to-be-checked link information (See paragraph [0034-0035], Router A may transmit a BFD message to router B, and router A verifies connectivity based on a response/non-response from router B, e.g., within a particular time period)); and check the first link information and the second link information based on the first indication information (See paragraph [0035], BFD services (or process) 244 contain computer executable instructions executed by processor 220 to verify connectivity between two systems/devices, depending on the transmission of BFD control packets ("BFD messages") between the two devices). However, Rahman et al teaches wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol BGP update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet.
Filsfils teaches wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol BGP update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet (See paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the to incorporate the teaching of Filsfils et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to advertise and propagate existing BGP message.
c. As per claims 9 and 19, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Rahman et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining not to send the first link information and the second link information to a neighbor node except the second node if the first link information and the second link information do not meet the validity check condition (See paragraph [0037 and 0044]).
d. As per claim 10, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Rahman et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending a fourth packet to the second node, wherein the fourth packet comprises the first link information and second indication information, and the second indication information indicates that the first link information is to-be-checked link information (See paragraph [0037 and 0044]).
e. As per claim 20, Rahman et al teaches a communication system, wherein the communication system comprises a first network device configured to determine first link information(See paragraph [0014, 0034-0035]), a second device, configured to send a first packet to the first device, wherein the first packet comprised second link information and first indication information (See paragraph [0006, 0012, 0030], BFD verifies connectivity between two devices based on the rapid transmission of BFD control packets between the two devices),, the first link information indicates a link from the first node to the second device (See paragraph [0034-0035], Router A may transmit a BFD message to router B, and router A verifies connectivity based on a response/non-response from router B, e.g., within a particular time period), the second link information indicates a link from the second node to the first device, and the first indication information indicates that eh second link information is to-be checked link information; , and a third wherein the first device checks the first link information and the second link information based on the first indication information (See paragraph [0035], BFD services (or process) 244 contain computer executable instructions executed by processor 220 to verify connectivity between two systems/devices, depending on the transmission of BFD control packets ("BFD messages") between the two devices); and if the first link information and the second link information meet a validity check condition, the first device sends the first link information and the second link information to the third node (See paragraph [0010, 0017], If the detected node or link failure occurred within the routing domain, the detecting node may advertise the intra-domain topology change to other nodes in the domain using IGP messages. Similarly, if an edge device detects a node or link failure that prevents communications with a neighboring routing domain, the edge device may disseminate the inter-domain topology change to other edge devices within its routing domain (e.g., using BGP messages). However Rahman et al fails to teach wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol (BGP) update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet.
Filsfils teaches wherein the first packet is a border gateway protocol (BGP) update packet used to transfer BGP link-state information, and the first indication information is carried in a first type-length-value (TLV) field located in a link attribute field of the first packet (See paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the to incorporate the teaching of Filsfils et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to advertise and propagate existing BGP message.
5. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0019614 to Rahman et al in view of U.S Publication No. 2015/0109904 to Filsfils et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. 2008/0186844 to He et al.
a. As per claims 3 and 13, Rahman et al teaches al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Rahman fails to teach wherein an attribute of the first TLV field comprises a non-transitive attribute indicating that the first TLV field is not to be forwarded.
He et al teaches wherein an attribute of the first TLV field comprises a non-transitive attribute, and the non-transitive attribute indicates that the first TLV field is not to be forwarded (See paragraph [0034], The router connected indirectly to the primary link neglects the received Neighbor TLV during routing learning process when it detects that the received Neighbor TLV bears the Link Overload Attribute, so that the service forward routing on a standby link is suppressed from changing and service forward routing is not recovered to the primary link (because the LDP session on the primary link has not been established at the moment).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of He et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to suppress service forward routing (See paragraph [0034]).
6. Claims 4-8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0019614 to Rahman et al in view of U.S Publication No. 2015/0109904 to Filsfils et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,382217 to Kebler et al.
a. As per claim 4 and 14, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Rahman et al fails to teach determining that the first link information and the second link information are used for BGP shortest path tree SPT calculation after the first link information and the second link information meet a validity check condition.
Kebler et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining that the first link information and the second link information are used for BGP shortest path tree SPT calculation if the first link information and the second link information meet a validity check condition (See col. col. 7, lines 1-14 and 8, lines 49-67).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Kebler et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to route and deliver traffic effectively.
b. As per claims 5 and 15, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Rahman et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending a second packet to a neighbor node except the second node after the first link information and the second link information meet the validity check condition, wherein the second packet comprises the first link information (See paragraph [0006, 0034 and 0037]).
c. As per claims 6 and 16, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Rahman et al teaches wherein the method further comprises: sending a third packet to a neighbor node except the second node after the first link information and the second link information meet the validity check condition, wherein the third packet comprises the second link information (See paragraph [0006, 0037]) .
d. As per claims 7 and 17, Rahman et al in view of Kebler et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Rahman et al wherein the first link information comprises a first source address and a first destination address, the second link information comprises a second source address and a second destination address; and that the first link information and the second link information meeting the validity check condition further comprises: the first source address is the same as the second destination address, the second source address is the same as the first destination address, and the first source address, the first destination address, the second source address, and the second destination address are in a same network segment (See paragraph [0013, 0037 and 0044]).
e. As per claims 8 and 18, Rahman et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Rahman et al fails to teach further comprising: determining that the first link information and the second link information are not used for shortest path tree SPT calculation after the first link information and the second link information do not meet a validity check condition.
Kebler et al teaches further comprising: determining that the first link information and the second link information are not used for shortest path tree SPT calculation after the first link information and the second link information do not meet a validity check condition (See col. col. 7, lines 1-14 and 8, lines 49-67).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Kebler et al in the claimed invention of Rahman et al in order to route and deliver traffic effectively.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights