DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 and 15-20 are elected for examination.
Claims 9-14 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1-8 and 15-20, in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two group of claims do not impose an undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth below.
Species I and II are distinct when each species, as claimed, requires a mutually exclusive characteristic not required by the other species, and the species, as claimed, are not obvious variants of each other (MPEP 806.04(f)).
In this instance,
Species I requires the mutually exclusive characteristics of: flexible algorithm attribute information, a flexible algorithm type field, a flexible algorithm length field, a flexible algorithm value field, a slice identification type field, a slice identification length field, a slice identification value field, a topology identification type field, a topology identification length field, a topology identification value field, which are not encompassed by species II.
Species II requires the mutually exclusive characteristics of: determining the second network node according to the third protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet; obtaining a unicast routing according to the third protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet; determining the second network node according to the unicast routing; wherein the unicast routing is obtained by at least one of: obtaining the unicast routing according to the network slice information or network topology information in the third protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet; or obtaining the unicast routing by a best-effort forwarding mode; determining the unicast routing within the network slice or network topology; determining the unicast routing within the network slice or network topology comprises: determining the unicast routing according to address information and network slice information carried in the join source address field; determining the unicast routing according to address information and network topology information carried in the join source address field, and determining the unicast routing according to address information, network slice information and network topology information carried in the join source address field, which are not encompassed by species I.
And species I and II are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (hereafter, “Li”), US 2023/0371098 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a packet generation method, applied to a multicast network (i.e., Fig. 4), the method comprising:
adding at least one piece of the following information into a protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet: network slice information; or network topology information (i.e., include the identification information of the data network and/or the identification information of the network slice in the PDU session establishment request message, page 10 paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the network slice information comprises at least one of the following: flexible algorithm attribute information; or slice identification attribute information (i.e., the identification information of the network slice may identify a network slice that transmits the multicast data, page 10 paragraph [0121]).
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites a network device, comprising: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor; the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions are used to execute the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites a computer program product comprising a computer program or computer instruction, wherein the computer program or computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or computer instruction, such that the computer device executes the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a network device, comprising: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor; the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions are used to execute the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a computer program product comprising a computer program or computer instruction, wherein the computer program or computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or computer instruction, such that the computer device executes the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, as discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai et al. (hereafter, “Cai”),
Regarding claim 1, Cai teaches a packet generation method, applied to a multicast network (i.e., format of new PIM messages, page 10 section 5.), the method comprising:
adding at least one piece of the following information into a protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet: network slice information; or network topology information (i.e., when a PIM router originates a PIM join packet, it may choose to encode the PIM MT-ID of the topology, page 7 section 4.2.1)
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the network slice information comprises at least one of the following: flexible algorithm attribute information; or slice identification attribute information (i.e., OSPF 1000, OSPF 2000, page 5).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the network topology information at least comprises topology identification attribute (i.e., MT-ID Join Attribute, page 3 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the topology identification attribute at least comprises a topology identification type field (i.e., Attribute type), a topology identification length field (i.e., Length) and a topology identification value field (i.e., Value) (i.e., section 5.2, page 11).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the network slice information or the network topology information is configured in a join source address field in the protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet, and the join source address field carries source address information or rendezvous point called RP address information (i.e., PIM MT-ID…source addresses, section 3.2., page 6) .
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches a multicast packet transmission method, applied to a first network node, comprising: configuring at least one of network slice information or network topology information into a first protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet (i.e., include the identification information of the data network and/or the identification information of the network slice in the PDU session establishment request message, page 10paragraph [0012]); and
transmitting a configured first protocol independent multicast called PIM join packet to a second network node (i.e., send, to a mobility management network element, a PDU session establishment request message for joining a multicast group, page 6 paragraph [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites a network device, comprising: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor; the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions are used to execute the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites a computer program product comprising a computer program or computer instruction, wherein the computer program or computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or computer instruction, such that the computer device executes the packet generation method according to claim 1, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites a network device, comprising: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor; the processor, when executing the computer program, implements the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions are used to execute the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites a computer program product comprising a computer program or computer instruction, wherein the computer program or computer instruction is stored in a computer-readable storage medium, a processor of a computer device reads the computer program or computer instruction from the computer-readable storage medium, and the processor executes the computer program or computer instruction, such that the computer device executes the multicast packet transmission method according to claim 8, as discussed above, same rationale of rejections is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Psenak et al. (hereafter, “Psenak”), US 2020/0322254 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the method according to claim 2.
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible algorithm attribute information at least comprises a flexible algorithm type field, a flexible algorithm length field and a flexible algorithm value field.
Psenak teaches wherein the flexible algorithm attribute information at least comprises a flexible algorithm type field, a flexible algorithm length field and a flexible algorithm value field (i.e., Fig. 2 and page 4 paragraphs [0041]- [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Li to implement the flexible algorithm attribute information at least comprising a flexible algorithm type field, a flexible algorithm length field and a flexible algorithm value field, in order to exclude potentially compromised network elements from data transmission route calculation (i.e., Psenak, page 1 paragraph [0014]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Hussain et al. (hereafter, “Hussain”), US 2-13/0230316 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the slice identification attribute information at least comprises a slice identification value field (i.e., identification information of a network slice, page 9 paragraph [0117).
Li does not explicitly teach a slice identification type field, a slice identification length field.
Hussain teaches a slice identification type field, a slice identification length field (i.e., Fig. 7C and page 10 paragraph [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Li to comprise a slice identification type field, a slice identification length field, as taught by Hussain because it was conventionally employed in the art for performance optimization of operational networks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Filsfils et al., US 10,601,724 B1, discloses a system and method for implementing network resource partitioning and Quality of Service (QoS) separation through network slicing, wherein a scalable network slicing is based on defining Segment Routing Flexible Algorithm (i.e., abstract).
Abrahma et al., US 12,185,393 B2, discloses wherein the request identifying the multicast service session comprises a data network name (DNN) or the request identifying the multicast service session comprises network slice information (i.e., col. 42 lines 19-22).
Zwiebel, US 20070165632 A1, discloses a method for providing rendezvous point (RP) functionality in protocol independent multicast (PIM) communications in a communications network (i.e., page 3 claim 1).
Hegde, US 2017/01540 A1, discloses processing a slice request of one or more encoded data slices associated with a vault within the DSN by identifying a multicast IP address associated with the vault (i.e., abstract).
Farmanbar et al., US 2017/0257870 A1, discloses there are two network slices operating on physical topology, groups of flow segments are identified for each network slice (i.e., page 6 paragraph [0058]).
Singh et al., US 2017/0295531 A1, discloses an access request message is transmitted which comprises the topology ID, the communication ID, and the traffic ID, and an authorization of a network slice is received in response to transmitting the access message (i.e., abstract).
Joseph et al, US 2020/0145319 A1, discloses techniques are described for facilitating the inclusion of a non-flexible-algorithm router to be included in flexible-algorithm path computations (i.e., abstract).
Chhibber et al., US 2022/0337441 A1, discloses techniques for improved multicast network telemetry implemented over multilayer switches in a PIM domain (i.e., abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OANH DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi flex Mon-Fri 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571)272-7493. 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.
/OANH DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights