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 5/21/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed, applicant argues, in substance:
a) In page 6 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) fails to teach or disclose “a pulse trigger agent” as recited in claim 1 because Swallow “discloses a routing protocol device operating within an IGP or link-state routing framework, not a pulse trigger agent that detects hidden PE unreachability and generates a pulse message for a separate pulse distribution agent” and “Mada discloses an aggregating BGP speaker that advertises a BGP Aggregation-Exception NLRI or path attribute to BGP peers when a local specific-route failure occurs”, where “Mada’s BGP speaker is not a pulse trigger agent and does not generate a pulse message for a pulse distribution agent”. Applicant further contends that “even if Swallow and Mada are combined, the combination would merely provide routing-protocol advertisements, not the claimed pulse trigger agent”.
In response to argument (a), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by analyzing references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here applicant analyzes Swallow individually, then analyzes Mada individually and concludes that due to the individual analysis of each references the combination of references “would merely provide routing-protocol advertisements” and not a “pulse trigger agent”.
The examiner further notes that, as pointed out in the non-final Office action dated 2/27/2026 (hereinafter non-final Office action), page 2, the term “pulse trigger agent” is not a well-known term in the art and the specification fails to define it. It is not clear if a pulse trigger agent is software, hardware, or a combination thereof, or what components are necessary in the software, hardware, or combination thereof to create a pulse trigger agent. Thus, for examination purposes, a “pulse trigger agent” has been interpreted as any computing device capable of performing related claimed subject matter.
In claim 1, the pulse trigger agent detects “an unreachability of at least one PE device”, determines “that a route summarization is used”, generates “a pulse message indicating unreachability of the at least one PE device”, and transmits the pulse message to a “pulse distribution agent”.
Thus if an individual system, or one that is generated through a combination of references performs those steps, then the system is essentially a “pulse trigger agent” as claimed.
As shown by the non-final Office action, page 4, Swallow discloses
(i) detect, via the pulse trigger agent, an unreachability of at least one PE device of the plurality of PE devices (¶[0034]);
(ii) 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]).
Applicant states that Swallow is directed to “a routing protocol device operating within an IGP or link-state routing framework.”
This broad generalization does not touch based on the merits of the rejection as it does not address any of the specific citations provided in the non-final Office action.
Therefore, since applicant has not shown that ¶[0034] and ¶[0022] of Swallow does not disclose the claimed features, then it is presumed that Swallow discloses all the claimed the functions of a “pulse trigger agent” with the exception of determining “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”.
However, Mada discloses determine that a route summarization is used within the network (¶[0030] and ¶[0027]), wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization (¶[0002], ¶[0026], and ¶[0027]).
Applicant states that Mada is directed to “an aggregating BGP speaker that advertises a BGP Aggregation-Exception NLRI or path attribute to BGP peers when a local specific-route failure occurs.”
This broad generalization does not touch based on the merits of the rejection as it does not address any of the specific citations provided in the non-final Office action.
Therefore, since applicant has not shown that ¶[0002], ¶[0026], ¶[0027], and ¶[0030] of Mada does not disclose the claimed features, then it is presumed that Mada discloses the remaining functions of a “pulse trigger agent.”
The question is thus whether the teachings of Swallow can be combined with the teachings of Mada to arrive at a system that is equivalent to the claimed limitations.
Mada is directed towards a system that identifies “a network failure and appropriately advertising to all BGP peers about the network failure” so as to inform “BGP peers about the failed/unreachable networks”.
Swallow is directed towards a system that processes “connectivity data to obtain a routing update for distribution to another network device” where the routing update includes “reachability information” for a network using BGP (¶[0049]).
Therefore, both the networks of Mada and Swallow use BGP, and both references are concerned about informing other devices about reachability. That is, both Mada and Swallow are directed towards the same field of endeavor giving a person of ordinary skill in the art a reason to consider both Mada and Swallow as candidates for a possible combination.
A motivation to combine is provided in the non-final Office action, page 6, which has not been challenged by applicant.
Therefore, since (i) both references teach all of the functions performed by the claimed pulse trigger agent, (ii) both references are in the same field of endeavor, and (iii) a motivation to combine is provided, then the combination of Swallow and Mada disclose the claimed limitations.
b) In pages 6-7 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose a “pulse distribution agent” because “Swallow’s ABR 121 receives routing information, such as an LSA including routing summary and reachability information, and may generate or propagate a routing update based on that routing information.”
In response to argument (b), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes that, as pointed out in the non-final Office, page 2, the term “pulse distribution agent” is not a well-known term in the art and the specification fails to define it. It is not clear if a pulse distribution agent is software, hardware, or a combination thereof, or what components are necessary in the software, hardware, or combination thereof to create a pulse distribution agent. Thus, for examination purposes, a “pulse distribution agent” has been interpreted as any computing device capable of performing related claimed subject matter.
In claim 1, the pulse distribution agent transmits “a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device.”
Thus if an individual system, or one that is generated through a combination of references performs those steps, then the system is essentially a “pulse distribution agent” as claimed.
As shown by the non-final Office action, page 4, Swallow discloses
(i) transmit, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device (¶[0025]).
Applicant states that Swallow is directed to a system that “receives routing information, such as an LSA including routing summary and reachability information, and may generate or propagate a routing update based on that routing information.”
This broad generalization does not touch based on the merits of the rejection as it does not address any of the specific citations provided in the non-final Office action.
Therefore, since applicant has not shown that ¶[0025] of Swallow does not disclose the claimed features, then Swallow discloses all the claimed the functions of a “pulse distribution agent”.
c) In pages 7-8 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose “determine, at the pulse trigger agent, that a route summarization is used within the network” because “Mada may determine that BGP route aggregation is configured and may advertise only an aggregated route rather than specific routes” but, “Mada performs this operation in the context of a BGP aggregation router and a BGP aggregation-exception update” and the “cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed determination being performed by the claimed pulse trigger agent as part of the claimed pulse-trigger failure notification architecture”.
In response to argument (c), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The notes that, as pointed out in the non-final Office, page 2, the term “pulse trigger agent” is not a well-known term in the art and the specification fails to define it. It is not clear if a pulse trigger agent is software, hardware, or a combination thereof, or what components are necessary in the software, hardware, or combination thereof to create a pulse trigger agent. Thus, for examination purposes, a “pulse trigger agent” has been interpreted as any computing device capable of performing related claimed subject matter.
As it was explained in the response to argument (a), above, the pulse trigger agent, as interpreted by the examiner, is simply a system that (i) detects “an unreachability of at least one PE device”, (ii) determines “that a route summarization is used”, (iii) generates “a pulse message indicating unreachability of the at least one PE device”, and (iv) transmits the pulse message to a “pulse distribution agent”.
It was shown in the response to argument (a), above, that Swallow discloses (i) and (iii)-(iv). It was also shown that the combination of Swallow and Mada is proper. These specifics are not challenged by applicant in this argument.
A pulse trigger agent is thus disclosed (in the combination) if Mada discloses a system that determines “that a route summarization is used”.
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).
Whether Mada discloses that the operation is performed “in the context of a BGP aggregation router and a BGP aggregation-exception update” is irrelevant to the merits of the rejection because the claimed subject matter does not exclude a BGP aggregation router nor BGP aggregation-exception updates.
d) In page 8 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose the claimed limitation of “wherein the unreachability of the at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization” because “Mada’s hidden failure is a BGP prefix failure local to an aggregating router” whereas claim 1 “requires that the unreachability of at least one PE device is hidden by the route summarization and that this condition is determined in the context of the claimed pulse trigger agent and pulse distribution agent architecture”.
In response to argument (d), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
One cannot show nonobviousness by analyzing references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the examiner has relied on Swallow to disclose a PE device (Fig. 1 (e.g., elements 112-115, 122-125, etc.); ¶[0021], "A router may be an […] Provider Edge (PE)").
Swallow is then modified with Mada, to combine the teachings of both references.
In particular, Swallow discloses detecting unreachability of at least one PE device (¶[0034]), but not that the unreachability of the PE device is hidden by router summarization.
Mada discloses that reachability of devices may be hidden by route summarization, yet that it’s possible to detect unreachability (¶[0002], ¶[0026]-[0027], and ¶[0030]).
The system of Swallow alone would not be able to detect unreachability of PE devices that are hidden by route summarization, but if combined with the teachings of Mada, it would.
This combination is not challenged by applicant in this argument.
e) In pages 8-9 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fails to teach or disclose the claimed limitation of “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” because “Swallow discloses routing updates, LSA’s, link-state PDUs, and routing summary/reachability information” and “Mada discloses a BGP update containing an Aggregate-Exception path attribute or NLRI.” Thus, allegedly neither reference “discloses a pulse message generated at a pulse trigger agent and transmitted to a pulse distribution agent” and “claim 1 does not merely recite transmitting reachability information generally; it recites a specific message flow in which a pulse trigger agent generates and transmits a pulse message to a pulse distribution agent” and “the Office Action has not provided a sufficient articulated reason why one of ordinary skill would modify Swallow and Mada to arrive at it.”
In response to argument (e), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As it was explained in the response to argument (a), above, the pulse trigger agent, as interpreted by the examiner, is simply a system that (i) detects “an unreachability of at least one PE device”, (ii) determines “that a route summarization is used”, (iii) generates “a pulse message indicating unreachability of the at least one PE device”, and (iv) transmits the pulse message to a “pulse distribution agent”.
Similarly, as explained in argument (b), above, a pulse distribution agent, as interpreted by the examiner, is simply a system that transmits “a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device.”
Thus if an individual system, or one that is generated through a combination of references performs those steps, then the system essentially contains a “pulse trigger agent” and a “pulse distribution agent” as claimed.
A pulse message is interpreted as a message that indicates unreachability of the at least one PE device, as claimed.
Swallow therefore discloses generate, at the pulse trigger agent, and transmit 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 since the ABR 120 and ABR 121 as modified by Mada perform every single step performed by the pulse distribution agent and pulse trigger agent, then it can be said that the combination of Swallow and Mada discloses 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 as claimed.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the non-final Office action provided reasons for the combination in page 6 lines 7-9 of the non-final Office action..
f) In page 9 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combined system of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose the limitations of “transmit, from the pulse distribution agent, a failure message informing other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device” because “Swallow’s message is part of an IGP/link-state routing framework, and Mada’s message is a BGP route advertisement/path attribute. Neither is a failure message transmitted from a pulse distribution agent in the claimed pulse-based architecture.”
In response to argument (f), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
as explained in argument (b), above, a pulse distribution agent, as interpreted by the examiner, is simply a system that transmits “a failure message”
Similarly, a “failure message” is any message that informs “other PE devices of the unreachability of the at least one PE device.”
In Swallow, ¶[0025], ABR 121 generates a message using “routing summary information and reachability information” and “may be used to put routers receiving the message 129 on notice as to which nodes outside Area-3 133 are reachable or unreachable”. Since this message informs PE devices about reachability of other PE devices, then the message is a “failure message” as claimed, and since ABR 121 transmits this failure message, then the ABR 121 is a “pulse distribution agent” as claimed.
g) In pages 9-10 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose the limitations of claim 17 because it is similar in scope to claim 1, which has been discussed previously.
In response to argument (g), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the response to arguments (a)-(f), above, the combination of Swallow and Mada discloses the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Swallow and Mada also discloses the features of claim 17 even when in in method form.
h) In page 10 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose the limitations of “wherein the network includes at least one non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within the failure message” as recited in claim 2 because the disclosure of the reference “is not the claimed non-organized structure configured to add an attribute within a failure message” and because claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore requires the architecture of claim 1 but Swallow and Mada fail to disclose the architecture of claim 1.
In response to argument (h), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(f), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada discloses the architecture of claim 1.
Further, applicant fails to explain why the teachings of Dave are not equivalent to the claimed non-organized structure given the examiner’s interpretation of the term “non-organized structure” which is not challenged by applicant.
i) In pages 10-11 of the response filed, applicant argues that the combination of Swallow and Mada fail to teach or disclose the limitations of “wherein the at least one non-organized structure is built automatically” as recited in claim 3 because a “routing protocol structure or route-management structure is not the claimed non-organized pulse-distribution structure”.
In response to argument (i), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(h), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada discloses the limitations of claims 1-2. Assuming, arguendo, that the argued “non-organized pulse-distribution structure” refers to the system created by claims 1-2, above, then the combination of Swallow, Mada, and Dave discloses that argued “non-organized pulse-distribution structure”.
j) In page 11 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention” as recited in claim 4 because “the Office action has not shown a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention within the claimed failure message.”
In response to argument (j), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The non-final Office action on page 12 has shown that “a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention” is disclosed by combining the teachings of Swallow, Mada, Dave, and Li. Applicant’s argument fails to specifically point out why the combination fails to teach the claimed limitations.
k) In page 11 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the attribute includes a negative pulse message configured for loop prevention” as recited in claim 4 because the “negative pulse message is tied to the pulse distribution framework, not merely to any routing-protocol loop-prevention technique”.
In response to argument (k), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Assuming, arguendo, that the argued “pulse distribution framework” is the system composed of the features that are claimed in claims 1-2, then it has been shown, by the response to arguments (a)-(h), that the combination of Swallow, Mada, and Dave disclose such system. Further modifying that system with the teachings of Li would thus provide loop prevention for a “pulse distribution framework” as argued.
(l) In page 11 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the attribute is an identifier for loop prevention” as recited in claim 5 because the “Office action has not shown an identifier added by the claimed non-organized structure withing the failure message of claim 1”.
In response to argument (l), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in the response to argument (a)-(h), above, the combination of Swallow, Mada, and Dave disclose all the features of claims 1-2, above, including the failure message (i.e., forms the argued “non-organized structure”).
For claim 5, Li is used to further modify the failure message, not replace it. The modification thus results in a failure message including an attribute that is an identifier for loop prevention within the argued non-organized structure.
(m) In pages 11-12 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the network includes at least one distribution structure” because “Swallow’s topology is a routing topology used for link-state advertisements and routing updates, not a distribution structure for pulse-based failure-message distribution”.
In response to argument (m), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse-based failure-message distribution” structure, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the structure of the system disclosed by the combination of Swallow and Mada is the argued “pulse-based failure-message distribution” structure.
(n) In page 12 of the response filed, applicant argues that that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the at least one distribution structure is a tree structure” as recited in claim 7 because “the claims require the distribution structure of the claimed pulse-based architecture, not merely a drawing that can be viewed as having hierarchical elements”.
In response to argument (n), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse-based architecture” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the structure of the system disclosed by the combination of Swallow and Mada is the argued “pulse-based architecture.”
(o) In page 12 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the at least one distribution structure is a full-mesh structure” because the claim “must be read in the context of the claimed pulse distribution system”.
In response to argument (o), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse distribution system” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the structure of the system disclosed by the combination of Swallow and Mada is the argued “pulse distribution system”
The combination of Swallow and Mada is further modified, not replaced, by Patel et al. (US 20160248663 A1) in order to show that a distribution structure may be “a full-mesh structure”.
Deficiencies with the cited portions of Patel or the combination of Patel with Swallow and Mada are not argued by applicant.
(p) In page 13 of the response filed applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules” because the “teachings are not the claimed pulse distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules”.
In response to argument (p), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse distribution structure” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, the structure of the system disclosed by the combination of Swallow and Mada is the argued “pulse distribution structure.”
The combination of Swallow and Mada is further modified, not replaced, by Dave in order to show that a distribution structure may be “an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules”.
Deficiencies with the cited portions of Dave or the combination of Dave with Swallow and Mada are not argued by applicant.
(q) In page 13 of the response filed applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the at least one distribution structure is an automated loop-free distribution structure based on a service discovery protocol and predetermined propagation rules” because the Office action does not “explain why one or ordinary skill in the art would have modified” the system of Swallow and Mada with Dave.
In response to argument (q), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Reasons for the combination are provided in page 10, lines 2-3 of the non-final Office action.
(r) In page 13 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitation “wherein the at least one distribution structure is associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops” as recited in claim 10 because “the Office action has not identified one or more rules associated with the claimed distribution structure for avoiding loops in the distribution of pulse-based failure messages”.
In response to argument (r), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1 including a failure message.
The combination of Swallow and Mada is further modified, not replaced, by Dave in order to show that a distribution structure may be “associated with one or more rules configured to avoid loops”.
Deficiencies with the cited portions of Dave or the combination of Dave with Swallow and Mada are not argued by applicant.
(s) In pages 13-14 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitations of claim 11 and 12 and therefore the claims should be allowable.
In response to argument (s), the examiner notes that the non-final Office action only indicated 35 USC 112 rejections for claims 11 and 12. Applicant has not responded the such rejections and therefore the rejections are maintained and the claims cannot be allowed at this time.
(t) In pages 14-15 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitations of “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” as recited in claim 13 because neither Mada nor Swallow disclose a “failure message transmitted from a pulse distribution agent to other PE devices” because the references fail to show a “pulse distribution architecture”.
In response to argument (t), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse distribution architecture” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1 including a failure message (Swallow, ¶[0025]).
Therefore, the structure of the system disclosed by the combination of Swallow and Mada is the argued “pulse distribution architecture.”
(u) In page 15 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitations of “wherein the detection by the pulse trigger agent is based on data from an interior gateway protocol (IGP)” as recited in claim 14 because the combination fails to show a “pulse trigger agent that performs the claimed detection”.
In response to argument (u), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada disclose a pulse trigger agent.
The functions of the disclosed agent are modified by unknown author ("IP Routing: BGP configuration Guide", CISCO, 2019, hereinafter CISCO) in order for the detection to be based on data from an interior gateway protocol.
Applicant does not argue the merits of the cited pages of “unknown author” nor the merits of the combination of references.
(v) In page 15 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitations “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” as recited in claim 15 because “the claim requires selection or determination of other PE devices in the context of the claimed pulse distribution architecture”.
In response to argument (v), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse distribution architecture” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1 and therefore the argued “pulse distribution architecture”.
This architecture is modified, not replaced, by Dave in order to show 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.
Applicant does not argue the merits of the cited portions of Dave nor the merits of the combination of references.
(x) In pages 15-16 of the response filed, applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or disclose the limitations “wherein the failure message is part of a link-state (LS) protocol” as recited in claim 16 because it has not been shown that “Swallow’s LSA is the claimed failure message, nor has it shown that Swallow discloses the pulse trigger agent and pulse distribution agent architecture from which that failure message is transmitted”.
In response to argument (x), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has failed to define what a “pulse trigger agent and pulse distribution architecture” comprises, and therefore this is interpreted as any structure capable of performing the steps recited in claim 1.
It has been shown in the response to arguments (a)-(g), above, that the combination of Swallow and Mada teach the limitations of claim 1 and therefore the argued “pulse trigger agent and pulse distribution architecture.”
The response to argument (b) also explains how a failure message has been mapped to Swallow.
(w) In page 16 of the response filed, applicant argues that claims 18-20 recite features similar in scope to those of claims 2, 11, and 12 and should therefore be allowed.
In response to argument (w), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in the response to argument (a)-(x), above, the combination of references discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Claims 11 and 12 have not been rejected under any reference and thus the arguments are moot.
Claims 18-20 have been rejected under 35 USC 112 and the rejection has not been challenged by applicant.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights