DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 09/16/2024. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
1a. Status of the claims:
Claim 11 is canceled.
Claims 12-13 are amended.
Claims 14-21 are new.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending.
Objection
2. The Abstract is objected to because an abstract language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure describes.” MPEP 608.01(b). The language “The present disclosure provides a method and apparatus for generating...” can be implied.
2a. Claim 1 is objected to because -BFER- has to be spell out. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang document (hereinafter “Zhang”) (Prefix Redistribution), an IDS provided reference.
Regarding claim 1,Zhang discloses a method for generating a forwarding table, comprising:
judging, when a target forwarding table is to be generated on the basis of a received first advertisement message ( ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 , page 7 last paragraph),
whether there is a second bit-forwarding router-identifier (BFR-ID) same as a first BFR-ID in existing BFR-IDs in the target forwarding table (both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100), ,Zhang, page 7 section 4.3 last […] For example, if ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 while ABR2 advertises a more specific summary route P2 and both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100, then the BIFT entry for BFR-ID 100 should follow the P2 route in BIRT" ; where BFR-ID 100 is the a second bit-forwarding router-identifier (BFR-ID) and BIFT as a first BFR-ID in existing BFR-IDs in the target forwarding table),
wherein the first advertisement message is used for advertising the first BFR-ID of a first BFER ( Specifically, when an ASBR redistributes BIER prefixes for BFERs [...] If route summarization is used, because a summarized prefix may cover many BFERs, the BFR-IDs of those covered BFERs needs to be explicitly listed in proxy range sub-TLV (see Section 4.2). In case of Seamless MPLS (Section 2.2), when a border router advertise BIER information for itself in one area/ domain, it also explicitly lists the BFIRs/ BFERs in other areas/ domains that are reachable via itself in the proxy range sub-TLV, Zhang, page 4, Section 4.3 last paragraph);
determining, when it is determined that there is the second BFR-ID, a target bit-forwarding router-prefix (BFR-Prefix) from a first BFR-Prefix corresponding to the first BFR-ID and a second BFR-Prefix corresponding to the second BFR-ID (page 7 para 2 "The BIER proxy range sub-TLV is included in the BIER Sub-TLV for an aggregated/summary route prefix or default route prefix, or in the BIER Sub-TLV for a BIER prefix (for a border router in a Seamless MPLS network). Multiple BIER proxy range sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BIER Sub-TLV"page 7 Section 4.3 last para "It is possible that a BFER is covered in the proxy range sub-TLV of multiple default/summary routes. In that case, ECMP MAY be used and longest match SHOULD be used. For example, if ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 while ABR2 advertises a more specific summary route P2 and both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100, then the BIFT entry for BFR-ID 100 should follow the P2 route in BIRT"page 12 para 2: "If R3 and RS are allowed to advertise the summary prefix received from the upper domain. They can advertise the same summary prefixes or the different prefixes according to the operation policy. When they advertise the same summary prefixes, the R3 and RS can also be used for ECMP. When they advertise the different summary prefixes, the more specific prefixes are used to generate the BIER forwarding table. Whatever the same or different prefixes are advertised, the next hop is set to R3/R5, (Zhang, Points 4.2 and 4.3 ); and generating the target forwarding table on the basis of the target BFR-Prefix (a BFR builds BIRTs as specified in [RFC8279] with entries including host/summary/default prefixes. BIFT entries are then derived from a corresponding BIRT" , where BFR-ID 100 is the a second bit-forwarding router-identifier (BFR-ID) and BIFT as a first BFR-ID in existing BFR-IDs in the target forwarding table ,Zhang, page 7, section 4.3 [2]; [3]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target bit-forwarding router-prefix (BFR-Prefix) from the first BFR-Prefix corresponding to the first BFR-ID and the second BFR-Prefix corresponding to the second BFR-ID, comprising:
comparing first content comprised in the first BFR-Prefix with second content comprised in the second BFR-Prefix; determining the first BFR-Prefix as the target BFR-Prefix when it is determined that the first content is more detailed than the second content ( ,Zhang, page lines ); and determining the second BFR-Prefix as the target BFR-Prefix when it is determined that the second content is more detailed than the first content ( It is possible that a BFER is covered in the proxy range sub-TLV of multiple default/summary routes. In that case, ECMP MAY be used and longest match SHOULD be used. For example, if ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 while ABR2 advertises a more specific summary route P2 and both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100, then the BIFT entry for BFR-ID 100 should follow the P2 route in BIRT ,Zhang, page 7 Section 4.3 last paragraph ; first content is the first advertising ,the content has more details equated to the advertisement a more specific summary route, the first BFR-prefix correspond to the prefix of the first BFR, the second BFR-Prefix is the prefix of the second BFR).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target bit-forwarding router-prefix (BFR-Prefix) from the first BFR-Prefix corresponding to the first BFR-ID and the second BFR-Prefix corresponding to the second BFR-ID, comprising:
comparing first attribute information of the first BFR-Prefix with second attribute information of the second BFR-Prefix; determining the first BFR-Prefix as the target BFR-Prefix when it is determined that an attribute value of the first attribute information is superior to an attribute value of the second attribute information; and determining the second BFR-Prefix as the target BFR-Prefix when it is determined that an attribute value of the second attribute information is superior to an attribute value of the first attribute information ( It is possible that a BFER is covered in the proxy range sub-TLV of multiple default/summary routes. In that case, ECMP MAY be used and longest match SHOULD be used. For example, if ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 while ABR2 advertises a more specific summary route P2 and both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100, then the BIFT entry for BFR-ID 100 should follow the P2 route in BIRT ,Zhang, page 7 Section 4.3 last paragraph; first attribute information is the prefix of the first BFR, the first BFR-prefix correspond to the prefix of the first BFR, second attribute information ,the prefix of the second BFR; the second BFR-Prefix is the prefix of the second BFR ).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein generating the target forwarding table on the basis of the target BFR-Prefix, comprising:
updating, in a case that the target BFR-Prefix is the first BFR-Prefix, the second BFR-Prefix corresponding to the second BFR-ID and a next-hop device which already exist in the target forwarding table to the first BFR-Prefix and a next-hop device corresponding to the first BFR-Prefix; and maintaining, in a case that the target BFR-Prefix is the second BFR-Prefix, the second BFR-ID and the second BFR-Prefix corresponding to the second BFR-ID and the next-hop device which already exist in the forwarding table unchanged ( It is possible that a BFER is covered in the proxy range sub-TLV of multiple default/summary routes. In that case, ECMP MAY be used and longest match SHOULD be used. For example, if ABR1 advertises default/summary route P1 while ABR2 advertises a more specific summary route P2 and both have a proxy range sub-TLV that covers BFR-ID 100, then the BIFT entry for BFR-ID 100 should follow the P2 route in BIRT; With this scheme, even though the BIER prefixes are not advertised into the IGP for an area/domain in a Seamless MPLS network and unicast traffic for those BIER prefixes are tunneled through, corresponding BIFT entries are maintained inside the area/domain for the purpose of efficient BIER forwarding. Otherwise, BIER forwarding through the area/domain would be tunneled just like unicast case, Zhang, page 7 section 4.3; page 8, first paragraph ).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the second advertisement message comprises second out-of-domain TLV,
wherein, the second out-of-domain TLV carries second BFR-ID information; or
the second out-of-domain TLV carries the second BFR-ID information and the second DOMAIN-ID information of the domain where the second BFER is located, (In order to build one BIER sub-domain which includes these three IGP domains, R3 advertises the BFR-ids of Rm/Rn with associated prefixes (201.1.1.1 /32, 201.1.1.2/32) into the upper domain. Similarly, R4 advertises the BFR-ids of Rx/Ry with associated prefixes (202.1.1.1/32, 202.1.1.2/32) into the upper domain too. And R3/R4 advertises the prefixes of R1 and R2 (suppose that the prefixes are 200.1.1.1 /32 and 200.1.1.2/32) with associated BFR-ids into IGP domain 1 and domain 2. Also, R3 advertises the prefixes learned from R4 (202.1.1.1 /32, 202.1.1.2/32) with associated BFR-ids into IGP domain 1. R4 also advertises the prefixes (201.1.1.1 /32, 201.1.1.2/32) with associated BFR-ids into IGP domain 2 Zhang, page 5 section [1] and [2] ; in addition, advertising a second out-of-domain BFR-ID, a boundary device performs advertisement in the form of new out-of-domain SUB-TLV or out-of-domain SUB-SUB-TLV (TLV: Type, Length, Value)
).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the second advertisement message comprises the second BFR-Prefix, and the second out-of-domain TLV is sent following the second BFR-Prefix, wherein the second BFR-Prefix comprises one of an aggregate routing prefix, a default routing prefix, and a BFR-Prefix of a boundary device (The BIER proxy range sub-TLV is included in the BIER Sub-TLV for an aggregated/summary route prefix or default route prefix, or in the BIER Sub-TLV for a BIER prefix (for a border router in a Seamless MPLS network). Multiple BIER proxy range sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BIER Sub-TLV , Zhang, page 7 section 4.3; in addition, advertising a second out-of-domain BFR-ID, a boundary device performs advertisement in the form of new out-of-domain SUB-TLV or out-of-domain SUB-SUB-TLV (TLV: Type, Length, Value).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first advertisement message comprises first out-of-domain TLV, wherein, the first out-of-domain TLV carries first BFR-ID information; or
the first out-of-domain TLV carries the first BFR-ID information and the first DOMAIN-ID information of the domain where the first BFER is located ,( The BIER proxy range sub-TLV is included in the BIER Sub-TLV for an aggregated/summary route prefix or default route prefix, or in the BIER Sub-TLV for a BIER prefix (for a border router in a Seamless MPLS network). Multiple BIER proxy range sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BIER Sub-TLV Zhang, page 7 [2] ; in addition, advertising a first out-of-domain BFR-ID, a boundary device performs advertisement in the form of new out-of-domain SUB-TLV or out-of-domain SUB-SUB-TLV (TLV: Type, Length, Value ).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the first advertisement message comprises the first BFR-Prefix, and the first out-of-domain TLV is sent following the first BFR-Prefix, wherein the first BFR-Prefix comprises one of an aggregate routing prefix, a default routing prefix, and a BFR-Prefix of a boundary device ( The BIER proxy range sub-TLV is included in the BIER Sub-TLV for an aggregated/summary route prefix or default route prefix, or in the BIER Sub-TLV for a BIER prefix (for a border router in a Seamless MPLS network). Multiple BIER proxy range sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BIER Sub-TLV Zhang, page 7 [2]; in addition, advertising a first out-of-domain BFR-ID, a boundary device performs advertisement in the form of new out-of-domain SUB-TLV or out-of-domain SUB-SUB-TLV (TLV: Type, Length, Value ).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein executing error handling comprises at least one of :
performing an alarm prompt to prompt that a problem exists in current network deployment; and sending alarm information to a controller, to indicate that a problem exists in current network deployment of the controller (The BIER proxy range sub-TLV is included in the BIER Sub-TLV for an aggregated/summary route prefix or default route prefix, or in the BIER Sub-TLV for a BIER prefix (for a border router in a Seamless MPLS network). Multiple BIER proxy range sub-TLVs MAY be included in the BIER Sub-TLV , Zhang, page 7 section 4.3 ). .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
4a. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of WIJNANDS et al. (hereinafter “WIJNANDS”) (“MULTICAST USING BIT INDEX EXPLICIT REPLICATION (BIER)”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the first advertisement message further comprises first-domain identifier DOMAIN-ID information of a domain where the first BFER is located, after determining that there is the second BFR-ID same as the first BFR-ID in existing BFR-IDs in the target forwarding table, further comprising:
determining second DOMAIN-ID information of a domain where a second BFER is located which is carried in a second advertisement message for advertising the second BFR-ID when it is determined that the BFR-Prefixes respectively corresponding to the first BFR-ID and the second BFR-ID are both from the outside of the domain ( For the multiple IGP domains scenario in Section 2.1, BIER information from one domain needs to be redistributed into another domain, like that BIER information is redistributed from one IGP area to another[...] when a border router advertise BIER information for itself in one area/domain, it also explicitly lists the BFIRs/ BFERs in other areas/domains that are reachable via itself in the proxy range sub-TLV Zhang, page 4 section 3 [1] ).
.
Zhang does not disclose explicitly executing error handling when it is determined that either or both of the BFR-Prefixes respectively corresponding to the first BFR-ID and the second BFR-ID comes/come from within a domain; executing error handling when the first DOMAIN-ID information is different from the second DOMAIN-ID information.
WIJNANDS discloses executing error handling when it is determined that either or both of the BFR-Prefixes respectively corresponding to the first BFR-ID and the second BFR-ID comes/come from within a domain; executing error handling when the first DOMAIN-ID information is different from the second DOMAIN-ID information (“Since each BFR needs to have a unique (in each sub-domain) BFR-id, two different BFRs will not advertise ownership of the same <Sub-domain-id, BFR-id> unless there has been a provisioning error. o If BFR-A determines that BFR-B and BFR-C have both advertised the same BFR-id for the same sub-domain, BFR-A MUST log an error. Suppose that the duplicate BFR-id is "N". When BFR-A is functioning as a BFIR, it MUST NOT encode the BFR-id value Nin the BIER encapsulation, WIJNANDS, page 14, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate WIJNANDS’s teachings with Zhang’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to advertise a report efficiently an error by provision a log error two different BFRs will not advertise ownership of the same <Sub-domain-id, BFR-id>.
4b. Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang document (hereinafter “Zhang”) (Prefix Redistribution), an IDS provided reference in view of Shepherd et al. (hereinafter “Shepherd”) (US 20150131660 A1) an IDS provided reference.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses claim 12 that is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Zhang does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program.
Shepherd discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program (a memory storing software executed by a processor, Shepherd, [0119])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Shepherd’s teachings with Zhang’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to improve productivity of a computer user, with a good understanding of a software running in a computer the computer user become more productive.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 13 that is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Zhang does not disclose an electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program which is stored on the memory and can be run on the processor.
Shepherd discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program which is stored on the memory and can be run on the processor (a memory storing software executed by a processor, Shepherd, [0119])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Shepherd’s teachings with Zhang’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to improve productivity of a computer user, with a good understanding of a software running in a computer the computer user become more productive.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 9, thus the same rationale applies.
4c. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang document, in view of Shepherd, and further in view of WIJNANDS, an IDS provided reference.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang and Shepherd disclose claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights