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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Levy-Abegnoli et al., US Pub. No.20080137659.
As to claim 1, Levy-Abegnoli discloses a packet transmission method, comprising:
obtaining, by a validation device (triggering node16 fig.3), an address prefix from a sending device (access router 12 fig.3) and sending, by the validation device, a response packet to the sending device, wherein the response packet indicates usage status information, of the address prefix, at a receiving device (using the triggering node for sending a message to the access router that includes its CGA address and its public key for validation of the CGA address and upon successful validation of the cryptographically generated address, outputting the preempting IPv6 packet based on the prescribed flow label field value. As described previously, any non-priority packet is either blocked (if the preemptive blocking service 42 is implemented) or limited to low priority status, see [0032] and [0040]).
As to claim 7, Levy-Abegnoli discloses sending by the validation mode the first alarm information to the receiving device, wherein the first alarm information to provide a suggestion mode for validating the source address prefix (if the acknowledgment that authentication failed, the routing services resource also can send in step a routing message to the next hop router specifying that the preemptive blocking services should be implemented for any IPv6 packet output from the IPv6 access router, see [0035] to [0036]).
Claims 11, 14, 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1, 5 and 7 respectively.
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) 2, 5, 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy-Abegnoli et al., US Pub. No.20080137659 in view of Chaturmohta et al., US Pub. No.20210135982.
As to claim 2, Levy-Abegnoli does not specifically disclose that the address prefix comprises a source address prefix, the validation device is the receiving device, and the obtaining, by a validation device, and the address prefix from a sending device comprises: receiving, by the validation device, a source prefix advertisement (SPA) packet from the sending device, wherein the SPA packet comprises the source address prefix. However, Chaturmohta discloses the address prefix comprises a source address prefix, the validation device is the receiving device, and the obtaining, by a validation device, and the address prefix from a sending device comprises: receiving, by the validation device, a source prefix advertisement (SPA) packet from the sending device, wherein the SPA packet comprises the source address prefix (identifying and validating that new prefix automatically at the server through comparison against multiple open source and proprietary databases as well as internal databases. The system propagates that validation to all routers on the network. In some examples, the new prefix validation detects and validates any new prefix advertisement on the internet for a user/entity, see [0051] to [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Chaturmohta’s teachings into the computer system of Levy-Abegnoli to control data information because it would have identified an anomalous route or a fault alerting system and thus generated one or more alerts associated with the anomalous routes (see Chaturmohta’s [0052]).
As to claim 5, Chaturmohta discloses the address prefix comprises a source address prefix, the validation device is a control device, and the obtaining, by a validation device, and the address prefix from a sending device comprises: receiving, by the validation device, an-a source prefix advertisement (SPA) packet from the receiving device, wherein the SPA packet comprises the source address prefix (identifying and validating that new prefix automatically at the server through comparison against multiple open source and proprietary databases as well as internal databases. The system propagates that validation to all routers on the network. In some examples, the new prefix validation 122 detects and validates any new prefix advertisement on the internet for a user/entity, see [0051] to [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Chaturmohta’s teachings into the computer system of Levy-Abegnoli to control data information because it would have identified an anomalous route or a fault alerting system and thus generated one or more alerts associated with the anomalous routes (see Chaturmohta’s [0052]).
As to claim 7, Chaturmohta discloses sending, by the validation device, first alarm information to the receiving device, wherein the first alarm information is used to provide a suggestion for a validation mode that is for validating the source address prefix (identifying and validating that new prefix automatically at the server through comparison against multiple open source and proprietary databases as well as internal databases. The system propagates that validation to all routers on the network. In some examples, the new prefix validation 122 detects and validates any new prefix advertisement on the internet for a user/entity, see [0051] to [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement Chaturmohta’s teachings into the computer system of Levy-Abegnoli to control data information because it would have identified an anomalous route or a fault alerting system and thus generated one or more alerts associated with the anomalous routes (see Chaturmohta’s [0052]).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 2 and 2 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art discloses or teaches a method comprising a combination of: the address prefix comprises a source address prefix, the validation device is the receiving device, and the obtaining, by a validation device, the address prefix from a sending device comprises: receiving, by the validation device, ana source prefix advertisement (SPA) packet from the sending device, wherein the SPA packet comprises an identifier of the sending device and the source address prefix, receiving, by the validation device, a destination prefix probing (DPP) packet from the sending device, wherein the DPP packet comprises the identifier of the sending device; and
determining, by the validation device, the source address prefix based on the identifier, of the sending device, in the DPP packet and the SPA packet.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Umar Cheema, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. The fax phone number for this group 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).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for patents
P O Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights