The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 9/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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 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 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 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"
Regarding claims 17-20, the limitations are similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 11-12. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected for reasons similar to those set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 and 11-12, 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 (¶[0022], "ABR 121"), the system 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");
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 (¶[0022], "an LSA 116 is transmitted from the ABR 120 to the ABR 121. This LSA 116 includes both routing summary and reachability information"); and
transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (¶[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 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.
Mada discloses 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 (¶[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 to 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.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it "introduces a next-hop exclusion concept to the BGP routing protocol and provides an efficient approach to implement and deploy without compromising the benefits of route aggregation among BGP peers" (Mada, ¶[0003]).
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 1. 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.
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 lears 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 13, and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 in view of Swallow (US 20120287935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 discloses a system (Claim 1, the claimed method encompasses a system) comprising:
a network (Claim 1),
a plurality of provider edge (PE) devices in the network (Claim 1), the system configured to:
detect, an unreachability of at least one PE device of the plurality of PE devices (Claim 1);
determine, 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 (Claim 1);
transmit a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (Claim 1).
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 does not disclose a pulse trigger agent, and a pulse distribution agent, wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent; 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; and that the transmitting of the failure message is from the pulse distribution agent.
Swallow discloses a pulse trigger agent (¶[0022], "ABR 120"), and
a pulse distribution agent (¶[0022], "ABR 121"),
wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent (¶[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" - that the steps are performed by the pulse trigger agent is a result of the combination); and
transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (¶[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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 in view of Swallow to include a pulse trigger agent, and a pulse distribution agent, wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent; and that the transmitting of the failure message is from the pulse distribution agent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it provides a way to notify other PE devices of failed links thus preventing communication errors.
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the network includes at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 16).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the at least one non-organized structure is built automatically (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 16 (in view of Claim 13)).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the network includes at least one distribution structure (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 15).
Regarding claim 11, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the determining the route summarization is used within the network is performed via area border routing (ABR) analysis, wherein the ABR analysis includes: analyzing routing data to detect ABR and summary generation (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the determining the route summarization is used within the network is performed via area border routing (ABR) analysis, wherein the ABR analysis includes: analyzing ABR configuration data (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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 (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the detection by the pulse trigger agent is based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP) (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the other PE devices are determined based on at least one of a specific prefix or a set of prefixes belonging to an aggregate (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 7).
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the failure message is part of a link-state (LS) protocol (US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2, Claim 8).
Claims 17-20 are similarly rejected in view of the combination of claims 1, 5, and 16 of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 with Swallow, as claims 17-20 recite features similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 11-12 of the present application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 in view of Swallow (US 20120287935 A1), and further in view of Li (US 20040174825 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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 US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 in view of Swallow (US 20120287935 A1), and further in view of Patel (US 20160248663 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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 US Patent No. 11,736,340 B2 and Swallow 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]).
Claim1-13 and 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 in view of Swallow (US 20120287935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 discloses a system (Claim 1) comprising:
a network (Claim 1),
a plurality of provider edge (PE) devices in the network (Claim 1),the system configured to:
detect, an unreachability of at least one PE device of the plurality of PE devices (Claim 1);
determine 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 (Claim 1);
transmit a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (Claim 1).
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 does not disclose a pulse trigger agent, and a pulse distribution agent, wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent; 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; and that the transmitting of the failure message is from the pulse distribution agent.
Swallow discloses a pulse trigger agent (¶[0022], "ABR 120"), and
a pulse distribution agent (¶[0022], "ABR 121"),
wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent (¶[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" - that the steps are performed by the pulse trigger agent is a result of the combination); and
transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (¶[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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 in view of Swallow to include a pulse trigger agent, and a pulse distribution agent, wherein the detecting and the determining is performed by the pulse trigger agent; and that the transmitting of the failure message is from the pulse distribution agent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it provides a way to notify other PE devices of failed links thus preventing communication errors.
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the network includes at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the at least one non-organized structure is built automatically (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the attribute is an identifier for loop prevention (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the network includes at least one distribution structure (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is a tree structure (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is a full-mesh structure (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the at least one distribution structure is associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the determining the route summarization is used within the network is performed via area border routing (ABR) analysis, wherein the ABR analysis includes: analyzing routing data to detect ABR and summary generation (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the determining the route summarization is used within the network is performed via area border routing (ABR) analysis, wherein the ABR analysis includes: analyzing ABR configuration data (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow 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 (US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow 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 claims 17-20, US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 discloses a method (Claim 1).
The remaining limitations of claims 17-20 are similar in scope to those of claims 2 and 11-12. Therefore, claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 11-12, above.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 in view of Swallow (US 20120287935 A1), and further in view of unknown author ("IP Routing: BGP configuration Guide", CISCO, 2019, hereinafter CISCO).
Regarding claim 14, the combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the detection by the pulse trigger agent is based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP).
The combined system of US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow 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 lears 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 US Patent No. 12,132,606 B2 and Swallow 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and by overcoming all 35 USC 112 and double patenting rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20140003281 A1, which discloses “The network layer may be configured to provide path determination and logical addressing for data traffic (e.g., one or more data packets) communicated through a network. As such, the network layer may provide functional and/or procedural means of transferring data traffic from a source host on a network to one or more destination hosts on the same or different network. For example, the network layer may be responsible for routing functions, encapsulation, data packet fragmentation, data packer reassembly, delivery error reporting, any other suitable data packet processing or handling function” (¶[0022]).
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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 2446