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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 6/15/26, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued:
Without conceding the Examiner's position and in the interest of advancing the prosecution of the present application, the undersigned representative submits that claim 1 has been amended to recite, inter alia, "based on the notification, identifying subsequent unreachability of the controller as corresponding to the update of the controller." The undersigned representative submits that this amendment renders the rejection of claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, moot.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant’s arguments herein amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the Gali et al. reference. Applicant has not offered substantive reasons why the prior art reference is delinquent in teaching the elements (the mappings of which are provided in the rejections described below). These assertions are therefore inadequate and Applicant’s arguments cannot be deemed persuasive.
Moreover, in paragraph [0093] Gali et al. states:
[0093] In one example of network state information 66, publisher module 78 configures one or more databases to store device state information including device profiles and other device data. In general, an example network device's profile information describes learned paths by that example network device. Network devices such as routers are configured to establish paths with other networks or sub-networks such as in multi-topology network. Network switches may be configured to or otherwise directed to establish paths through a base network of multi-topology network. Such paths may include, for instance, IP tunnels such as Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) tunnels, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol (GTP) tunnels, LSPs, or a simple route through the base network or a VPN (identified by a static route with a route target, for instance). Network switches provide path status information for paths established through the network (e.g., the base network of multi-topology network) to the notifications service (e.g., via an adaptor) in communication sessions. Path status (alternatively, “path state” or “LSP state”) information may include descriptors for existing, operational paths as well as indications that an established path or path setup operation has failed. For example, a network switch may attempt establish an LSP using a reservation protocol such as Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) but fail due to insufficient network resources along a path specified by an Explicit Route Object (ERO). As a result, network switch may provide an indication that the path setup operation failed to the notifications service in a communication session. PCE 64 leverages network state information 66 to access path status information and adds established paths through the base network of network as links in the overlay network topology. (Emphasis added).
As shown herein, Gali et al. clearly teaches the limitations, “based on the notification, identifying subsequent unreachability of the controller as corresponding to the update of the controller.” (In one example of network state information 66, publisher module 78 configures one or more databases to store device state information including device profiles and other device data… Path status (alternatively, “path state” or “LSP state”) information may include descriptors for existing, operational paths as well as indications that an established path or path setup operation has failed… As a result, network switch may provide an indication that the path setup operation failed to the notifications service in a communication session). The network state information 66 maintained by the publisher module 78 is a global network state information as described in paragraphs [0022-0025]. Thus, Gali et al. teaches the newly added claim limitations.
The Examiner respectfully reminds applicant of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (See MPEP 2111), "During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow." In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court further elaborated on the “broadest reasonable interpretation" standard and recognized that “The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction." Thus, when interpreting claims, the courts have held that Examiners should (1) interpret claim terms as broadly as their terms reasonably allows and (2) interpret claim phrases as broadly as their construction reasonably allows. In conclusion, upon taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cited references teach all of the claimed limitations and the rejections are maintained as below.
Drawings
The drawings received on 6/24/26 are acceptable and the objection has been withdrawn.
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) 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gali et al. (2022/0286360).
As per claim 1, Gali et al. teaches a method comprising: receiving a notification, at a subscriber/client device in a network, of an update to a controller to which the subscriber/client device is configured to connect, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system [paragraphs 0022-0025];
based on the notification, identifying subsequent unreachability of the controller as corresponding to the update of the controller [paragraph 0093];
adjusting a length of time of an expiry timer during which the subscriber/client device attempts to connect to the controller, based on the notification, wherein adjusting the length allows for the update to occur [paragraphs 0065-0067].
Although Gali et al. teaches receiving a notification at a subscriber/client device as above, it fails to explicitly teach receiving a notification at an edge router. But teaches an edge router performing various other functions [paragraphs 0030-0031].
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 teachings of Gali et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another (a subscriber/client device in place of an edge router) in order to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 2, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: managing connectivity of the edge router to the controller upon the expiry timer is expired [paragraph 0169].
As per claim 3, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein managing the connectivity comprises: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and reconverging routing states between the controller and the edge router after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0027].
As per claim 4, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein managing the connectivity comprises: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and connecting to a new controller after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0190].
As per claim 5, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 4, wherein connecting to the new controller comprises: purging all routes learned from the controller; and initiating a connection to the new controller after the routes are purged [paragraph 0197].
As per claim 7, Gali et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the length of time of the expiry timer includes increasing the length of time [paragraph 0183].
As per claim 8, Gali et al. teaches a network subscriber/client device comprising: one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: receive a notification of an update to a controller to which the network subscriber/client device is configured to connect, wherein the notification is dynamically triggered by a centralized network management system, wherein the network subscriber/client device, the controller and the centralized network management system are configured to operate in a network [paragraphs 0022-0024];
based on the notification, identify subsequent unreachability of the controller as corresponding to the update of the controller [paragraph 0093];
adjust a length of time of an expiry timer during which the network subscriber/client device attempts to connect to the controller, based on the notification, wherein adjusting the length allows for the update to occur [paragraphs 0065-0067].
Although Gali et al. teaches receiving a notification of an update to a controller to which a network subscriber/client device is configured to connect as above, it fails to explicitly teach receiving a notification of an update to a controller to which a network router device is configured to connect. But teaches a network router performing various other functions [paragraphs 0030-0031].
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 teachings of Gali et al. because it is a simple substitution of one known element for another (a subscriber/client device in place of a network router) in order to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 9, Gali et al. teaches the network router of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to manage connectivity of the network router to the controller upon the expiry timer is expired [paragraph 0169].
As per claim 10, Gali et al. teaches the network router of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to manage the connectivity by: determining if the controller is reachable after the expiration of the expiry time; and reconverging routing states between the controller and the network router after determining that the controller is reachable [paragraph 0027].
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 have similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gali et al. (2022/0286360) in view of Prabhu et al. (2020/0382381).
As per claim 6, Gali et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 as above but fails to explicitly teach, however, Prabhu et al. in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the controller is a vSmart controller [Prabhu et al., paragraph 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gali et al. with Prabhu et al. in order to design network hardware resource based on performance considerations.
Claim 13 has similar limitations as to the rejected claims above therefore they are being rejected under the same rationale.
There are prior art made of record not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached.
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 extension fee 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 RANODHI N SERRAO whose telephone number is (571)272-7967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
Ranodhi N. Serrao
/RANODHI SERRAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights