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 Amendment
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 9/9/2026.
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed, applicant argues, in substance:
a) In pages 7-12 of the response filed, applicant argues that 35 USC 112 rejections on claims 1-20 are improper because the amendments “clarify the terms that the Office action identified as unclear” by defining functions that a “pulse trigger agent” and a “pulse distribution agent” perform (e.g., “pulse trigger agent, configured to […]” and “pulse distribution agent […] configured to […]” as recited in claim 1).
In response to argument (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Defining what an element does not define the element itself. Consider, for example, the phrase “a madeupword configured to receive a control signal” and the phrase “a vehicle configured to receive a signal.”
It’s clear that the term “madeupword” lacks a structure and while it is configured to receive a signal, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to infer the true scope of the term “madeupword”. By contrast, the term “vehicle” is well-known and one of ordinary skill would be able to determine a scope for the term “vehicle.” Simply stating that both the “madeupword” and the “vehicle” both are configured to receive signals does not change the fact that the “madeupword” does not have a structure, while a vehicle does.
Note that when a claim recites a non-structural term, such as “means” or any placeholder, including any unstructured terms provided by applicant, followed by a functional limitation (e.g., “configured to […]”, “for […]”, etc.), 35 USC 112(f) analysis is performed to determine a corresponding structure for the non-structural term. The functional limitation itself does not convey a structure. When structure for the non-structural term is not found in the specification, the claim may be rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
In this case, the limitations recite a “pulse trigger agent, configured to […]” and a “pulse distribution agent […] configured to […]” thereby triggering 112(f) analysis.
Upon review of the specification, the examiner is unable to determine which structure is to perform the claimed “pulse trigger agent” and “pulse distribution agent.”
b) In pages 13-14 of the response filed, applicant argues that the amendments overcome the cited references because Mada et al. (US 20220224629 A1, hereinafter Mada) fails to disclose detecting “unreachability of a PE-device address or prefix that is part of a summary route.”
In response to argument (b), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mada discloses detecting unreachability of a PE-device address or prefix that is part of a summary route (¶[0026], "network 20 utilizes BGP route aggregation where advertisements 22 are shown for aggregated prefixes within each autonomous system AS100, AS200, AS300, AS200, AS400, AS500. In these examples, the device 14 is configured to send traffic to prefix P2 which is in the autonomous system AS200, and the router 12D in the autonomous system AS400 is configured to send the traffic destined to the prefix P2 via an NH to the router 12C"; ¶[0027], "There is a fault 24 which causes the traffic from the device 14 to be blackholed at the router 12C since there is no route to the router 12B from the router 12C" (the reason for the blackholing is well known in the art and is caused by the route summarization hiding the unreachability, see, for example, stretch ("BGP route aggregation - part 1", PacketLife.net, page 3, "Consider what would happen if one of the /24 routes in AS 10 disappeared. R1, having installed the aggregate advertised from AS 30, would see AS 30 as a less-specific but valid path to the subnet, and route traffic to R3. R3, no longer having the more-specific route back to R1, drops the traffic, creating a black hole", and also the specification of the present application, paragraph [0002], " if one of network devices in a network that utilizes route summarization fails, other network devices that are in remote areas or domains must wait for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to figure out the unreachability of the failed network device")) – note aggregation is another term for summarization. Therefore, the fault is for a PE-device address that is part of a summary route.
c) In pages 13-14 of the response filed, applicant argues that the amendments overcome the cited references because Mada et al. (US 20220224629 A1, hereinafter Mada) fails to disclose “determining […] that the PE-device unreachability is hidden because the summary route covers that address or prefix.”
In response to argument (c), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims do not recite “determining […] that the PE-device unreachability is hidden because the summary route covers that address or prefix.”
Instead, the claims recites “wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization because the summary route covers the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device.”
Mada discloses that the PE device is hidden by route summarization (¶[0026], "network 20 utilizes BGP route aggregation where advertisements 22 are shown for aggregated prefixes within each autonomous system AS100, AS200, AS300, AS200, AS400, AS500. In these examples, the device 14 is configured to send traffic to prefix P2 which is in the autonomous system AS200, and the router 12D in the autonomous system AS400 is configured to send the traffic destined to the prefix P2 via an NH to the router 12C"; ¶[0027], "There is a fault 24 which causes the traffic from the device 14 to be blackholed at the router 12C since there is no route to the router 12B from the router 12C" (the reason for the blackholing is well known in the art and is caused by the route summarization hiding the unreachability, see, for example, stretch ("BGP route aggregation - part 1", PacketLife.net, page 3, "Consider what would happen if one of the /24 routes in AS 10 disappeared. R1, having installed the aggregate advertised from AS 30, would see AS 30 as a less-specific but valid path to the subnet, and route traffic to R3. R3, no longer having the more-specific route back to R1, drops the traffic, creating a black hole", and also the specification of the present application, paragraph [0002], " if one of network devices in a network that utilizes route summarization fails, other network devices that are in remote areas or domains must wait for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to figure out the unreachability of the failed network device")). That route summary covers the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device is a direct consequence of using route summarization, which Mada uses.
d) In pages 14-15 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow et al. (US 20120287935 A1, hereinafter Swallow) and Mada et al. (US 20220224629 A1, hereinafter Mada) fail to teach or disclose “pulse message indicating the unreachability of the at least one PE device, the pulse message being a short-lived message having a limited lifetime.”
In response to argument (d), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Swallow discloses pulse message indicating the unreachability of the at least one PE device, the pulse message being a short-lived message having a limited lifetime (¶[0022], "an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121. This LSA 116 includes both routing summary and reachability information" - one of ordinary skill in the art would note that network messages normally cease to exist after reaching their intended destination).
e) In page 15 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow et al. (US 20120287935 A1, hereinafter Swallow) fails to teach or disclose “transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, according to the pulse distribution structure and based on the pulse message a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device” because the references fail to disclose transmitting the failure message “according to a pulse distribution structure and based on a pulse message.”
In response to argument (e), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Swallow, in Fig. 1, discloses a structure including the PE devices, and recites in paragraph [0025], "ABR 121 may generate a message 129. Some example embodiments may include the ABR 121 using the routing summary information and reachability information provided by the LSA 116 to generate the message 129. In some example embodiments, this message 129 may be used to put routers receiving the message 129 on notice as to which nodes outside Area-3 133 are reachable or unreachable. For example, upon receiving the message 129, the PE 122 floods the message 129 onto the PE 123, 124, and 125 resulting in an update of each PE's respective RIB, and possibly the FIB, to the effect that routers 114 and 110 are unreachable."
Therefore, the failure message is distributed according to the structure of Fig. 1 since the PE devices are part of the structure.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation "transmitting, from the pulse distribution agent, the pulse distribution agent being separate from the pulse trigger agent and configured to distribute pulse messages using a pulse distribution structure identifying PE devices to receive failure messages, and transmitting according to the pulse distribution structure and based on the pulse message, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device" (underline for emphasis), which is syntactically incorrect as it recites "transmitting" twice referring to a single transmission. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pulse distribution agent” and “pulse distribution agent” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations recite the terms "pulse trigger agent" and "pulse distribution agent". The terms are not explicitly defined by the specification and they are not well-known terms in the art. Therefore, it is unclear if a "pulse trigger agent" and a "pulse distribution agent" perform any functions beyond those recited by the claimed limitations. It is also unclear if the "pulse trigger agent" and the "pulse distribution agent" are implemented by software, hardware, or a combination thereof, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-16, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations recite features similar to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 17, above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “pulse trigger agent” and “pulse distribution agent” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected since they are indefinite. For examination purposes, the terms "pulse trigger agent" and "pulse distribution agent" have been interpreted as any computing device capable of performing the claimed subject matter.
Further, claim 1 recites the term "short-lived message having a limited lifespan.” The term “short-lived” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short-lived” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, the term "short-lived message" has been interpreted as a regular network message having a limited lifespan.
Regarding claims 2-16, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Further, claim 2 recites the term "one non-organized structure". It's unclear what a "non-organized structure" encompasses and therefore the scope of the limitations is unclear. For examination purposes, the term "non-organized structure" has been interpreted as "structure"
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations recite the terms "pulse trigger agent" and "pulse distribution agent". The terms are not explicitly defined by the specification and they are not well-known terms in the art. Therefore, it is unclear if a "pulse trigger agent" and a "pulse distribution agent" perform any functions beyond those recited by the claimed limitations. It is also unclear if the "pulse trigger agent" and the "pulse distribution agent" are implemented by software, hardware, or a combination thereof, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would thus the scope of the claimed subject matter is indefinite. For examination purposes, the terms "pulse trigger agent" and "pulse distribution agent" have been interpreted as any computing device capable of performing the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations invoke, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 17, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow et al. (US 20120287935 A1, hereinafter Swallow) in view of Mada et al. (US 20220224629 A1, hereinafter Mada).
Regarding claim 1, Swallow discloses a system comprising:
a network (Fig. 1),
a plurality of provider edge (PE) devices in the network (Fig. 1 (e.g., elements 112-115, 122-125, etc.); ¶[0021], "A router may be an […] Provider Edge (PE)"),
a pulse trigger agent (¶[0022], "ABR 120"); and
a pulse distribution agent, the pulse distribution agent separate from the pulse trigger agent (¶[0022], "ABR 121"; Fig. 1, ABR 121 is separate from ABR 120) and
configured to distribute pulse messages using a pulse distribution structure identifying PE devices to receive failure messages (¶[0022], "an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121. This LSA 116 includes both routing summary and reachability information"; ¶[0025], "ABR 121 may generate a message 129. Some example embodiments may include the ABR 121 using the routing summary information and reachability information provided by the LSA 116 to generate the message 129. In some example embodiments, this message 129 may be used to put routers receiving the message 129 on notice as to which nodes outside Area-3 133 are reachable or unreachable. For example, upon receiving the message 129, the PE 122 floods the message 129 onto the PE 123, 124, and 125 resulting in an update of each PE's respective RIB, and possibly the FIB, to the effect that routers 114 and 110 are unreachable"; Fig. 1, a distribution structure showing all PE devices that receive the message 129 - it is understood that the devices are interconnected in the manner shown in Fig. 1 and therefore the message 129 is distributed using the structure shown in Fig. 1);
wherein the system is configured to: detect, via the pulse trigger agent, an unreachability of at least one PE device of the plurality of PE devices (¶[0034], "Shown are various operations 601-606 that may reside as part of, for example, an ABR 120 […] operation 606 may be executed to calculate the reachability information by determining a difference between an available address space, indicated by the address prefix, and a currently reachable address"),
wherein unreachability corresponds to an address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device (¶[0031], " LSA 116 including, for example, a routing summary 301 and reachability information 302 […] The routing summary 301 is written utilizing, for example, Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) notation, such that a prefix is illustrated along with an address space value, which here is represented as /25 bits. With regard to the reachability information 302, a matrix is illustrated including a number of bit values, wherein each of these bit values represents a reachable address when paired with the routing summary 301. In certain example embodiments, a flagged bit value set to "1" within the reachability information 302 may represent a reachable address for a particular node (e.g., a router) that resides as a part of, for example, an area (e.g., Area-1 104, Area-0 103, Area-2 105, Area-A 203, Area-B 204, and/or Area-C 205). In certain other example embodiments, a flagged bit value within this reachability information 302 may be, for example, a bit value set to "0."")
generate, at the pulse trigger agent, and transmit, to the pulse distribution agent, a pulse message indicating the unreachability of the at least one PE device, the pulse message being a short-lived message having a limited lifetime (¶[0022], "an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121. This LSA 116 includes both routing summary and reachability information" - one of ordinary skill in the art would note that network messages normally cease to exist after reaching their intended destination) and
identifying the at least one PE device or the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device (¶[0031], " LSA 116 including, for example, a routing summary 301 and reachability information 302 […] The routing summary 301 is written utilizing, for example, Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) notation, such that a prefix is illustrated along with an address space value, which here is represented as /25 bits. With regard to the reachability information 302, a matrix is illustrated including a number of bit values, wherein each of these bit values represents a reachable address when paired with the routing summary 301. In certain example embodiments, a flagged bit value set to "1" within the reachability information 302 may represent a reachable address for a particular node (e.g., a router) that resides as a part of, for example, an area (e.g., Area-1 104, Area-0 103, Area-2 105, Area-A 203, Area-B 204, and/or Area-C 205). In certain other example embodiments, a flagged bit value within this reachability information 302 may be, for example, a bit value set to "0.""); and
transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, according to the pulse distribution structure and based on the pulse message a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (¶[0022], "an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121. This LSA 116 includes both routing summary and reachability information"; ¶[0025], "ABR 121 may generate a message 129. Some example embodiments may include the ABR 121 using the routing summary information and reachability information provided by the LSA 116 to generate the message 129. In some example embodiments, this message 129 may be used to put routers receiving the message 129 on notice as to which nodes outside Area-3 133 are reachable or unreachable. For example, upon receiving the message 129, the PE 122 floods the message 129 onto the PE 123, 124, and 125 resulting in an update of each PE's respective RIB, and possibly the FIB, to the effect that routers 114 and 110 are unreachable").
Swallow does not disclose that the pulse trigger agent is configured to detect when route summarization masks reachability of one or more of the plurality of PE devices; that the at least one PE device is part of a summary route; determine, at the pulse trigger agent, that a route summarization is used within the network, wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization because the summary route covers the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device.
Mada discloses that the pulse trigger agent may be configured to detect when route summarization masks reachability of one or more of the plurality of PE devices (¶[0030], "upon detecting the fault 16, the aggregating router 12A has to determine that it advertised the summarized prefix on behalf of the specific fault 16. At step S2, if there is an advertised summarized prefix associated with the fault, the aggregating router 12A has to encode a new path attribute (37) in the BGP update and advertises a failed prefix NLRI in the BGP update message to its peers"; ¶[0027], "There is a fault 24 which causes the traffic from the device 14 to be blackholed at the router 12C since there is no route to the router 12B from the router 12C" - that the steps are performed by the pulse trigger agent is a result of the combination of Mada with Swallow, since in Swallow the pulse trigger agent determines unreachability);
the at least one PE device is part of a summary route (¶[0026], "network 20 utilizes BGP route aggregation where advertisements 22 are shown for aggregated prefixes within each autonomous system AS100, AS200, AS300, AS200, AS400, AS500. In these examples, the device 14 is configured to send traffic to prefix P2 which is in the autonomous system AS200, and the router 12D in the autonomous system AS400 is configured to send the traffic destined to the prefix P2 via an NH to the router 12C");
determine, at the pulse trigger agent, that a route summarization is used within the network (¶[0030], "upon detecting the fault 16, the aggregating router 12A has to determine that it advertised the summarized prefix on behalf of the specific fault 16. At step S2, if there is an advertised summarized prefix associated with the fault, the aggregating router 12A has to encode a new path attribute (37) in the BGP update and advertises a failed prefix NLRI in the BGP update message to its peers"; ¶[0027], "There is a fault 24 which causes the traffic from the device 14 to be blackholed at the router 12C since there is no route to the router 12B from the router 12C" - that the steps are performed by the pulse trigger agent is a result of the combination of Mada with Swallow, since in Swallow the pulse trigger agent determines unreachability),
wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization because the summary route covers the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device (¶[0026], "network 20 utilizes BGP route aggregation where advertisements 22 are shown for aggregated prefixes within each autonomous system AS100, AS200, AS300, AS200, AS400, AS500. In these examples, the device 14 is configured to send traffic to prefix P2 which is in the autonomous system AS200, and the router 12D in the autonomous system AS400 is configured to send the traffic destined to the prefix P2 via an NH to the router 12C"; ¶[0027], "There is a fault 24 which causes the traffic from the device 14 to be blackholed at the router 12C since there is no route to the router 12B from the router 12C" (the reason for the blackholing is well known in the art and is caused by the route summarization hiding the unreachability, see, for example, stretch ("BGP route aggregation - part 1", PacketLife.net, page 3, "Consider what would happen if one of the /24 routes in AS 10 disappeared. R1, having installed the aggregate advertised from AS 30, would see AS 30 as a less-specific but valid path to the subnet, and route traffic to R3. R3, no longer having the more-specific route back to R1, drops the traffic, creating a black hole", and also the specification of the present application, paragraph [0002], " if one of network devices in a network that utilizes route summarization fails, other network devices that are in remote areas or domains must wait for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to figure out the unreachability of the failed network device"));
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 Swallow in view of Mada so that the pulse trigger agent is configured to detect when route summarization masks reachability of one or more of the plurality of PE devices; that the at least one PE device is part of a summary route; determine, at the pulse trigger agent, that a route summarization is used within the network, wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization because the summary route covers the address or prefix associated with the at least one PE device; and that the transmitting the failure message is according to the pulse distribution structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would eliminate "redundant flooding of information" (Li, ¶[0009]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the network includes at least one distribution structure (Swallow, ¶[0019], "FIG. 1 is a diagram of an example network 100 including AS 101, which utilizes OSPF. Included within the AS are a number of areas. An area may be those defined under an IGP such as the OSPF protocol. For example, illustrated is an AS 101 including an Area-0 103 that serves as a backbone for Area-1 104, Area-2 105, and an Area-3 133. Each of these areas includes a number of nodes (e.g., routers). Within Area-1 104 are routers 112 and 113 that are connected via physical or logical links to ABR 120"; ¶[0022], " link-state data, such as link-state data 115, may be transmitted by, for example, a router 112 or a router 113. The ABR 120 may utilize an IGP to transmit routing summary data to, for example, an ABR 121. As shown here, for example, an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121").
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is a tree structure (Swallow, Fig. 1, the nodes are arranged in a tree structure - see also ¶[0057]).
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the failure message informs the other PE devices about the unreachability of a prefix of the at least one PE device that is part of a summary route (Mada, ¶[0030], "upon detecting the fault 16, the aggregating router 12A has to determine that it advertised the summarized prefix on behalf of the specific fault 16. At step S2, if there is an advertised summarized prefix associated with the fault, the aggregating router 12A has to encode a new path attribute (37) in the BGP update and advertises a failed prefix NLRI in the BGP update message to its peers").
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the failure message is part of a link-state (LS) protocol (Swallow, ¶[0025], "ABR 121 may generate a message 129. Some example embodiments may include the ABR 121 using the routing summary information and reachability information provided by the LSA 116 to generate the message 129. In some example embodiments, this message 129 may be used to put routers receiving the message 129 on notice as to which nodes outside Area-3 133 are reachable or unreachable").
Regarding claim 17, Swallow discloses a method (abstract, "system and methods").
The remaining limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to those of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow (US 20120287935 A1) in view of Mada (US 20220224629 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 17, above, and further in view of Dave (US 10419328 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not explicitly disclose that the network includes at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message.
Dave discloses a network including at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message (Dave, col. 1, lines 49-64, "a route update for one or more routes that direct traffic within a network that supports BGP, (2) identifying, within the route update, a BGP prefix and a plurality of protocol next-hop addresses that (A) identify a plurality of neighbors of the network device and (B) each correspond to the BGP prefix, (3) maintaining, at the network device, a single copy of the BGP prefix and each of the protocol next-hop addresses instead of maintaining a different copy of the BGP prefix for each of the protocol next-hop addresses, (4) receiving, at the network device, a packet destined for a computing device that is reachable via at least one of the neighbors of the network device, and then (5) forwarding the packet to the one of the neighbors of the network device in accordance with the BGP prefix and the protocol next-hop address that identifies the one of the neighbors").
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of Dave so that the network includes at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide "improved memory consumption in network devices via efficient route management" (Dave, col. 1, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the at least one non-organized structure is built automatically (Dave, col. 1, lines 49-64, "a route update for one or more routes that direct traffic within a network that supports BGP, (2) identifying, within the route update, a BGP prefix and a plurality of protocol next-hop addresses that (A) identify a plurality of neighbors of the network device and (B) each correspond to the BGP prefix, (3) maintaining, at the network device, a single copy of the BGP prefix and each of the protocol next-hop addresses instead of maintaining a different copy of the BGP prefix for each of the protocol next-hop addresses, (4) receiving, at the network device, a packet destined for a computing device that is reachable via at least one of the neighbors of the network device, and then (5) forwarding the packet to the one of the neighbors of the network device in accordance with the BGP prefix and the protocol next-hop address that identifies the one of the neighbors" (i.e., the structure is built by identifying the neighbors); col. 1, line 65 to col. 2, line 1, "a system for implementing the above-described method may include various modules stored in memory. The system may also include at least one physical processor that executes these modules").
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not disclose that the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules.
Dave discloses that at least one distribution structure may be an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules (col. 6, lines 10-13, "In some examples, signaling module 110 may remove certain route information from the route update to prevent routing loops in external BGP (eBGP) configurations and/or situations […] In particular, signaling module 110 may leave intact and/or insert the route information that identifies the best and/or preferred AS path among the routes included in the route update. In other words, signaling module 110 may remove route information that identifies all the AS paths except for the best and/or preferred AS path" - see also col. 8, lines 37-40, "remove certain route information from the route update to prevent routing loops since implementation 600 includes and/or represents an eBGP configuration", which implies detection of eBGP (service discovery)).
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of Dave so that the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide "improved memory consumption in network devices via efficient route management" (Dave, col. 1, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not disclose that the at least one distribution structure is associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops.
Dave discloses that at least one distribution structure may be associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops (col. 6, lines 10-13, "In some examples, signaling module 110 may remove certain route information from the route update to prevent routing loops in external BGP (eBGP) configurations and/or situations […] In particular, signaling module 110 may leave intact and/or insert the route information that identifies the best and/or preferred AS path among the routes included in the route update. In other words, signaling module 110 may remove route information that identifies all the AS paths except for the best and/or preferred AS path" - see also col. 8, lines 37-40, "remove certain route information from the route update to prevent routing loops since implementation 600 includes and/or represents an eBGP configuration", which implies detection of eBGP (service discovery)).
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of Dave so that the at least one distribution structure is associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide "improved memory consumption in network devices via efficient route management" (Dave, col. 1, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not disclose that the other PE devices are determined based on at least one of a specific prefix or a set of prefixes belonging to an aggregate.
Dave discloses that the other PE devices may be determined based on at least one of a specific prefix or a set of prefixes belonging to an aggregate (col. 1, lines 49-64, "a route update for one or more routes that direct traffic within a network that supports BGP, (2) identifying, within the route update, a BGP prefix and a plurality of protocol next-hop addresses that (A) identify a plurality of neighbors of the network device and (B) each correspond to the BGP prefix, (3) maintaining, at the network device, a single copy of the BGP prefix and each of the protocol next-hop addresses instead of maintaining a different copy of the BGP prefix for each of the protocol next-hop addresses, (4) receiving, at the network device, a packet destined for a computing device that is reachable via at least one of the neighbors of the network device, and then (5) forwarding the packet to the one of the neighbors of the network device in accordance with the BGP prefix and the protocol next-hop address that identifies the one of the neighbors").
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of Dave so that the other PE devices are determined based on at least one of a specific prefix or a set of prefixes belonging to an aggregate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide "improved memory consumption in network devices via efficient route management" (Dave, col. 1, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 17, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to those of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, above.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow (US 20120287935 A1) in view of Mada (US 20220224629 A1) and Dave (US 10419328 B1), as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20040174825 A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave does not disclose that the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention.
Li discloses that an attribute may include a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention (¶[0002], "databases include information enabling the cluster head nodes to determine appropriate paths for routing messages thorough the network, while the LSA packets provide information to update the databases"; ¶[0064], "The LSA packet is transmitted to the FP"; ¶[0066], "If the re-flood timeout timer expires without receiving an acknowledgment, however, the method enters decision box 30. The method decides whether to again transmit the LSA packet (i.e. re-flood). If the number of re-flood attempts are greater than a predetermined number (for example 5), the method branches to step 32 and breaks communication with the FP. The method also informs its grouping module that transmissions of LSAs to the FP have failed, and exits in step 33. If the number of re-flood attempts do not exceed the predetermined number, the method branches back to step 25 and re-floods the LSA packet"; ¶[0012], "re-flooding the at least one LSA, from the node, onto the communication network, if the received TTL value is greater than a value of one, and preventing re-flooding of the at least one LSA if the received TTL value is equal to a value of zero" (a ttl of 1 means the packet will expire after one hop, i.e. rapidly expire) - alternatively, ¶[0084], "after the re-flood timeout timer expires, the method enters decision box 139. If the acknowledge timeout timer is still pending, the method deletes (cancels) the acknowledge timeout timer (step 142) and enters decision box 140. After the acknowledge timeout timer expires, the method also enters decision box 140. If the FP has reached a predetermined number of tries (for example, 5) in attempting to receive an acknowledgment from another node, the method enters step 143 and drops the links with the unacknowledging nodes, informs its grouping module (FIG. 13), and exits" - by exiting the process the LSA is not retransmitted again due to expiration of timer and expiration of number of attempts. That the message of Li is a failure message is the result of the combination with Mada, which discloses that information to update routes is provided due to a failure (Mada, ¶[0030])).
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 combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave in view of Li so that the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would eliminate "redundant flooding of information" (Li, ¶[0009]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave does not disclose that the attribute is an identifier for loop prevention.
Li discloses that an attribute may be an identifier for loop prevention (¶[0002], "databases include information enabling the cluster head nodes to determine appropriate paths for routing messages thorough the network, while the LSA packets provide information to update the databases"; ¶[0064], "The LSA packet is transmitted to the FP"; ¶[0066], "If the re-flood timeout timer expires without receiving an acknowledgment, however, the method enters decision box 30. The method decides whether to again transmit the LSA packet (i.e. re-flood). If the number of re-flood attempts are greater than a predetermined number (for example 5), the method branches to step 32 and breaks communication with the FP. The method also informs its grouping module that transmissions of LSAs to the FP have failed, and exits in step 33. If the number of re-flood attempts do not exceed the predetermined number, the method branches back to step 25 and re-floods the LSA packet"; ¶[0012], "re-flooding the at least one LSA, from the node, onto the communication network, if the received TTL value is greater than a value of one, and preventing re-flooding of the at least one LSA if the received TTL value is equal to a value of zero" (a ttl of 1 means the packet will expire after one hop, i.e. rapidly expire) - alternatively, ¶[0084], "after the re-flood timeout timer expires, the method enters decision box 139. If the acknowledge timeout timer is still pending, the method deletes (cancels) the acknowledge timeout timer (step 142) and enters decision box 140. After the acknowledge timeout timer expires, the method also enters decision box 140. If the FP has reached a predetermined number of tries (for example, 5) in attempting to receive an acknowledgment from another node, the method enters step 143 and drops the links with the unacknowledging nodes, informs its grouping module (FIG. 13), and exits" - by exiting the process the LSA is not retransmitted again due to expiration of timer and expiration of number of attempts. That the message of Li is a failure message is the result of the combination with Mada, which discloses that information to update routes is provided due to a failure (Mada, ¶[0030])).
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 combined system of Swallow, Mada, and Dave in view of Li so that the attribute is an identifier for loop prevention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would eliminate "redundant flooding of information" (Li, ¶[0009]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow (US 20120287935 A1) in view of Mada (US 20220224629 A1) and Dave (US 10419328 B1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 20160248663 A1, hereinafter Patel).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not disclose that the at least one distribution structure is a full-mesh structure.
Patel discloses that at least one distribution structure may be a full-mesh network (¶[0023], "To implement iBGP, however, a full mesh is required in which every router within the autonomous system is connected to every other router via a connection such as TCP").
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of Patel so that the at least one distribution structure is a full-mesh structure.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the system to communicate with external destinations (Patel, ¶[0003] and ¶[0021]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swallow (US 20120287935 A1) in view of Mada (US 20220224629 A1) and Dave (US 10419328 B1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of unknown author ("IP Routing: BGP configuration Guide", CISCO, 2019, hereinafter CISCO).
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of Swallow and Mada discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of Swallow and Mada does not disclose that the detection by the pulse trigger agent is based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP).
CISCO discloses that the detection by a pulse trigger agent may be based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP) (page 3, under BGP Convergence, "BGP learns of failures through either Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) or BFD events"; page 4, under MPLS Functionality, "IGP conveys the failure through the RIB to the FIB").
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 combined system of Swallow and Mada in view of CISCO so that the detection by the pulse trigger agent is based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it "improves convergence after a network failure" (unknown, page 4, under MPLS Functionality).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
