Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed March 2, 2026.
This application was filed 8/27/2024, is a 371 National Stage of PCT filed on 10/17/2022, and claims foreign priority to Chinese application filed on 2/28/22.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the groupings relate to inseparable components under a single inventive concept of VPN label switching.
In reply, Firstly, this is not found persuasive because each of the three different devices correspond to a different grouping, and operate independently of the other. For example, the core device of Group I includes functionality of receiving a table, advertising a route, and replacing a label. These functionalities are unique to the core device and do not necessarily require the components of the other devices in the other groupings for the core device to perform these functions. Secondly, claims 8 and 16 are dependent claims which depend from claims 6 and 7, and which are structurally different than claim 1. Furthermore, each of the claims 6,8,&16 have different preambles which create inconsistencies and confusion regarding their scope and regarding their dependency relationship. Accordingly, each of the 3 groups (as shown in the restriction requirement dated 1/2/2026) are drawn to different inventions which are different in their functionality, structure and scope. The restriction requirement is hereby made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Group I, claims 1-3,14,15 are elected, and are pending examination.
Groups II & III, claims 4-10,16, are hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/27/24 are acceptable.
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 1-3,14,15 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.
In claim 1:
Lines 7-8 recite “advertising a VPN route… information corresponding to the core device…”, which is ambiguous. It is unclear if the route is advertised to the core device, or if the information corresponds to the core device;
Lines 8-10 recite “… the first PE device encapsulates the first VPN label… and sends…” appears to be contradictory. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first PE device” in the claim. Secondly, the claim preamble recites “applied to a core device”, therefore it is unclear if the PE device encapsulating a label is part of the core device, or if the core device is performing the encapsulating, and how a core device sends to itself. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites “receiving a VPN route…”. However it is unclear if this is the same route or different than the VPN route mentioned in claim 1.
Claims 2,3,14,15 depend on claim 1 thus inheriting the deficiencies of claim 1, and are rejected based upon the same rationale given 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 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.
Claims 1-3,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (US Publication 20140003425) in view of Bashandy et al (US Publication 20150009803).
In reference to claim 1, Zhao teaches a network scheduling method, applied to a core device, the method comprising:
receiving a route forwarding table from a centralized control device, wherein the route forwarding table is used for representing a correspondence between a first Virtual Private Network (VPN) label of the core device and a second VPN label of a second Provider Edge (PE) device, and the route forwarding table carries next hop address information corresponding to the second PE device; (see at least ¶ 29 lines 10-23, ¶ 35 lines 1-8 & ¶ 38, which teaches a core/root device receiving messages containing forwarding/binding table information, the tables maintain binding correspondence between VPNs on the network, and including next hop address of PE nodes)
advertising a VPN route carrying the first VPN label corresponding to the core device according to the route forwarding table, such that the first PE device encapsulates the first VPN label into a data packet according to the VPN route, and sends the data packet carrying the first VPN label to the core device; (see at least ¶s 31 lines 15-28 & ¶ 32, which teaches the core/root device sending VPN route information carrying downstream VPN labels; and see at least ¶ 40 & ¶ 41 lines 1-6, which teaches the PE device encapsulating the label into a packet and sending the packet to the core/root device) and
replacing the first VPN label carried in the data packet with the second VPN label according to the route forwarding table, and sending the data packet carrying the second VPN label to the second PE device (see at least ¶ 36 & ¶ 41 lines 6-41, which teaches swapping the VPN labels according to the forwarding table, and then forwarding the packet to another PE device).
Zhao fails to explicitly advertising a route carrying next hop address information. However, Bashandy teaches label switching and tunneling data traffic (see Bashandy, at least Abstract & Background), and discloses core devices advertising next hop “NH” information to PE devices (see at least ¶ 43,45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhao based on the teachings of Bashandy for the purpose of sharing path information for ensuring traffic securely reaches its destination.
In reference to claim 2, Zhao teaches receiving a VPN route from a second PE device and swapping the VPN labels according to a forwarding table (see Zhao, at least ¶s 43,44).
In reference to claim 3, Bashandy teaches obtaining LDP lables via LDP messages according to information of the PE device, see Bashandy at least ¶s 31,32. And furthermore, Zhao teaches the encapsulation (see Zhao, at least ¶s 40,41). It would have been obvious for one been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhao based on the teachings of Bashandy for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
Claims 14,15 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights