DETAILED ACTION
Claims 29-56 are pending in this application and claims 1-28 are cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
The applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 03/20/2019 (INDIA 201931010956).
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 09/30/2024 and 01/29/2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 29, 36, 43 and 50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,639. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are recites the similar limitations as the U.S Patent limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(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) 29-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Psenak et al. (NPL Reference U).
Regarding claim 29, Psenak teaches a method, comprising:
generating, by an area border node (ABR in OSPF see Psenak: section 10 last paragraph), an inter-area interior gateway protocol (IGP) advertisement message (advertisement of node participation in a IGP Flex algorithm see Psenak: Page 10 Sections 8 and 8.1), wherein the IGP advertisement message comprises a flexible algorithm (Flex-Algo) specific metric (Flex-Algorithm include the metric type part of the Flex-Algorithm definition see Psenak: section 10), the Flex-Algo specific metric is associated with a destination prefix within a first area of an inter-area IGP network (the Flex-Algorithm specific path to an inter-area prefix will only be computed for the local area only see Psenak: Page 12 last paragraph), the inter-area IGP network comprises the first area and a second area (router to use IGPs to association with one or more segment routing prefix and segment routing applies to all topologies see Psenak: Section 1; section 8.1), and the destination prefix is from the first area (The egress L1/ L2 router (ABR in OSPF) will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm in the local area and such egress L1/L2 (ABR in OSPF) router will be responsible to compute the best Flex- Algorithm specific path over the next area see Psenak: Section 10 last paragraph); and
sending, by the area border node, the IGP advertisement message to the second area, wherein the first area comprises the area border node, and the second area comprises the area border node (The egress L1/ L2 router (ABR in OSPF) will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm in the local area and such egress L1/L2 (ABR in OSPF) router will be responsible to compute the best Flex- Algorithm specific path over the next area. This may produce an end- to-end path, which is sub-optimal based on Flex-algorithm constraints see Psenak: Page 12 last paragraph), and wherein the Flex-Algo specific metric is used to compute an end-to-end optimized path between the second area and the first area for the destination prefix (Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths for any particular Flex-Algorithm MUST be application specific see Psenak: section 10).
Regarding claim 30, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein the IGP advertisement message further comprises a Flex-Algo identifier (Flexible Algorithm numeric identifier see Psenak: Page 4 Section 4 in range 128-255).
Regarding claim 31, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein the IGP advertisement message further comprises a segment identifier (SID), and the SID is associated with the destination prefix (router to use IGPs to associate one or more Segment Routing Prefix-SIDs with a particular Flex-Algorithm see Psenak: introduction).
Regarding claim 32, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein the IGP advertisement message comprises a type-length-value (TLV), wherein the TLV is a sub-TLV of an open shortest path first (OSPF) extended prefix TLV, or a sub-TLV of an OSPFv3 E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA-TLV (OSPF Flexible Algorithm Definition TLV and Flexible Algorithm Definition Sub-TLV see Psenak: sections 5.1-5.2).
Regarding claim 33, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein the IGP advertisement message comprises a type-length-value (TLV), and the TLV is a sub-TLV of any one of the following intermediate system to intermediate system (ISIS) TLVs: an extended Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) reachability - TLV-135; a multi-topology IPv4 reachability - TLV-235; an extended Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) reachability-TLV-236; or a multi-topology IPv6 reachability-TLV-237 (Sub TLVs for Type 242 see Psenak: Section 14.2.1).
Regarding claim 34, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein the Flex-Algo specific metric is determined according to at least one of the following characteristics: IGP cost (IGP Metric see Psenak: Page 5), delay, or excluded link attributes (exclude for link attributes for flex-Algorithm see Psenak: section 9).
Regarding claim 35, Psenak taught the method according to claim 29 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein that the Flex-Algo specific metric is used to calculate an end-to-end optimized path between the second area and the first area for the destination prefix comprises: the Flex-Algo specific metric is used to calculate an inter-area path metric between the second area and the first area through the area border node, and the inter-area path metric is used to determine the end-to-end optimized path (This may produce an end- to-end path, which is sub-optimal based on Flex-Algorithm constraints see Psenak: section 10).
Regarding claim 36, Psenak teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a source node, a first inter-area interior gateway protocol (IGP) advertisement message sent by a first area border node, wherein the first IGP advertisement message comprises a first flexible algorithm (Flex-Algo) specific metric, the first Flex-Algo specific metric is associated with a destination prefix within a first area of an inter-area IGP network, the inter-area IGP network comprises the first area and a second area, the destination prefix is from the first area, the source node is from the second area, the first area comprises the first area border node, and the second area comprises the first area border node (The egress L1/ L2 router (ABR in OSPF) will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm in the local area and such egress L1/L2 (ABR in OSPF) router will be responsible to compute the best Flex- Algorithm specific path over the next area. This may produce an end- to-end path, which is sub-optimal based on Flex-algorithm constraints see Psenak: Page 12 last paragraph);
receiving, by the source node, a second IGP advertisement message sent by a second area border node, wherein the second IGP advertisement message comprises a second Flex-Algo specific metric (Flex-Algorithm include the metric type part of the Flex-Algorithm definition see Psenak: section 10), the Flex-Algo specific metric is associated with a destination prefix within a first area of an inter-area IGP network (the Flex-Algorithm specific path to an inter-area prefix will only be computed for the local area only see Psenak: Page 12 last paragraph), the second Flex-Algo specific metric is associated with the destination prefix within the first area (The egress L1/ L2 router (ABR in OSPF) will be selected based on the best path for the given Flex-Algorithm in the local area and such egress L1/L2 (ABR in OSPF) router will be responsible to compute the best Flex- Algorithm specific path over the next area see Psenak: Section 10 last paragraph), the first area comprises the second area border node, and the second area comprises the second area border node ; and
calculating, by the source node, an end-to-end optimized path between the second area and the first area for the destination prefix according to the first Flex-Algo specific metric and the second Flex-Algo specific metric (Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths for any particular Flex-Algorithm MUST be application specific see Psenak: section 10).
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected for the same reason as claim 30 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected for the same reason as claim 31 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected for the same reason as claim 32 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is rejected for the same reason as claim 33 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 is rejected for the same reason as claim 34 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 42, Psenak taught the method according to claim 36 as described hereinabove. Psenak further teaches wherein calculating, by the source node, the end-to-end optimal path between the second area and the first area for the destination prefix according to the first Flex-Algo-specific metric and the second Flex-Algo-specific metric comprises: calculating, by the source node according to the first Flex-Algo specific metric, a first inter-area path metric that is between the second area and the first area and that passes through the first area border node; calculating, by the source node according to the second Flex-Algo specific metric, a second inter-area path metric that is between the second area and the first area and that through the second area border node (Paths computed for a specific Flex-Algorithm MAY be used by various applications, each potentially using its own specific data plane for forwarding the data over such paths see Psenak: section 8); and determining, by the source node, the end-to-end optimized path according to the first inter-area path metric and the second inter-area path metric (Calculation of Flexible Algorithm Paths for any particular Flex-Algorithm MUST be application specific see Psenak: section 10).
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 is rejected for the same reason as claim 30 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 45, claim 45 is rejected for the same reason as claim 31 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 46, claim 46 is rejected for the same reason as claim 32 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 47, claim 47 is rejected for the same reason as claim 33 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 48, claim 48 is rejected for the same reason as claim 34 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 49, claim 49 is rejected for the same reason as claim 35 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 50, claim 50 is rejected for the same reason as claim 36 as described hereinabove. Claim 50 recites an apparatus that perform the same functionalities as the method of claim 36 as set forth hereinabove.
Regarding claim 51, claim 51 is rejected for the same reason as claim 30 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 52, claim 52 is rejected for the same reason as claim 31 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 53, claim 53 is rejected for the same reason as claim 32 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 54, claim 54 is rejected for the same reason as claim 33 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 55, claim 55 is rejected for the same reason as claim 34 as described hereinabove.
Regarding claim 56, claim 56 is rejected for the same reason as claim 42 as described hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUANG W LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7AM-5PMET.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached on (571) 272-3905. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GUANG W. LI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2478
September 28, 2026
/GUANG W LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
