DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-14, 21-26
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 5, 8, 12, 21, 25
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 15-20
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-14, 21-26 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 7/28/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri (US Pub. 2014/0032785) in view of Kolar (US Pub. 2023/0327971), and further in view of Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2022/0360500).
With respect to Claim 1, Chaudhuri teaches a method for detecting network service reachability in an SD- WAN overlay fabric comprising: (A SD-WAN overlay fabric will be taught later. Paras. 26, 28, 37, 40; system determines availability of resource.)
enabling, by a multi-tenant edge device, to transmit a probe (A multi-tenant edge device will be taught later. paras. 12-13, 22; global site selectors are inserted into the routing hierarchy to monitor the health and load of application control engines. The GSSs will route to standby datacenters for an application when a primary datacenter is down. Paras. 26, 28, 38; system determines availability of devices using probing. Para. 43; SNMP probing or simple ping.)
to a network service located at a first data center; (para. 14, 23; data center provides resources such as services including network service. Fig. 1, paras. 12-13, 22, 26; Multiple datacenters where routing and rerouting is performed based on availability and proximity.)
determining, by the multi-tenant edge device and based at least in part on the TLV embedded in the probe, whether the network service is reachable, (TLV will be taught later. para. 22; re-routing to available resources. Paras. 26, 28, 37, 40; system determines availability of resource.)
independently of, and without receiving reachability information relayed via, an SD-WAN network controller; (paras. 12-13, 26, 28, 38; data centers each contain a device (GSS) that probes for reachability of other devices by determining if a device is available, active and ready to receive traffic. See also Ramaswamy, Fig. 2, paras. 32-34, 39, 55; data center sets up transport groups and may not use network controller. paras. 32; bandwidth, error rate of links.)
and based at least in part on determining that the network service is not reachable, switching by the multi-tenant edge device, network traffic to a second data center where the network service is reachable. (para. 22; re-routing to available resources. Paras. 21, 41; failover.)
But Chaudhuri does not explicitly teach SD-WAN.
Kolar, however, does teach in an SD- WAN overlay fabric (para. 29; SD-WAN used to connect local network to data center/cloud environment. See also Ramaswamy, para. 20; SD-WAN overlay in branches.)
by a multi-tenant edge device at a branch site, a tenant onboard the multi- tenant edge device, (The device being multi-tenant will be taught later. paras. 26, 41, 56; branch network or branch office. Para. 42-44, 96, 99-100; router at the edge of a remote site performs probing to divert traffic.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Chaudhuri with the SD-WAN in order to virtualize WAN functions and provide monitoring and control of connections. (Kolar, para. 29)
But modified Chaudhuri does not explicitly teach a multi-tenant edge device.
Ramaswamy, however, does teach a multi-tenant edge device. (para. 30; multi-tenant gateway that uses tenant identifiers to handle traffic for multiple tenants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to employ multi-tenant edge devices at a branch to allow for routing of multiple organizations or to allow for different routing for different parts of a single organization.)
the probe embedding a Type Length Value (TLV) associated with the network service; (A network service was previously taught. paras. 2, 16; link characteristics in TLV format.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Chaudhuri with the multi-tenant edge device in order to differentiate flows based on identifiers. (Ramaswamy, para. 30)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, and Kolar also teaches wherein the probe is a bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) probes. (para. 125; BFD probe.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, and Kolar also teaches wherein the tenant is a first tenant onboard the multi-tenant edge device and the probe is a first probe transmitted at a first rate, and further comprising a second tenant onboard the multi-tenant edge device that transmits a second probe at a second rate to the network service. (paras. 113-117; system may sample some paths more than others. Paras. 113, 119; administrator specifies probing quota. Since different tenants would have different administrators and use different resources in different ways it would suggest differing probing frequencies.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 4, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, and Chaudhuri also teaches wherein the first data center is determined based at least in part on geo-proximity to the branch site. (para. 26; routing based on proximity. paras. 13, 43, 56; GSS prefers closest datacenter based on geographic proximity.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, and Kolar also teaches wherein the network service is one of a firewall, a load balancer, or a caching infrastructure. (para. 70; cloud-delivered firewalls)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Chaudhuri also teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (para. 50, 57; processor. para. 67; non-transitory computer readable media.)
With respect to Claims 9-11, 13, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-4, 6, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 21, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Chaudhuri also teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (para. 50, 57; processor. para. 67; non-transitory computer readable media.)
With respect to Claims 22-24, 26, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-4, 6, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 5, 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri (US Pub. 2014/0032785) in view of Kolar (US Pub. 2023/0327971), in view of Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2022/0360500) and further in view of Gandhi (US Pub. 2020/0084147).
With respect to Claim 5, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a metadata header of a MPLS.
Gandhi, however, does teach wherein the probe comprises an inline data packet (paras. 17, 24, 26, 29-32; probing is done using data packets in the data plane to avoid issues from using a different path in the control plane. See also Chaudhuri, para. 28; GSS sends a keepalive to determine if a device is reachable, which is an inline mechanism.)
comprising an underlay portion and an overlay portion (para. 15; underlay network with overlay network of EVPN.)
and the TLV is embedded within a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) label and metadata (MDATA) header of the overlay portion of the inline data packet. (paras. 42-48, 56, 65, 95-97, 136; data packet includes MPLS header which has a PM Metadata TLV that carries delay and loss information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Chaudhuri with the MPLS metadata header in order to use a known place to store TLV information. (Gnadhi, para. 56, 136)
With respect to Claims 12 and 25 they are substantially similar to Claim 5, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri (US Pub. 2014/0032785) in view of Kolar (US Pub. 2023/0327971), in view of Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2022/0360500) and further in view of Nath (US Pub. 2023/0188382).
With respect to Claim 7, modified Chaudhuri teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach headless mode.
Nath, however, does teach wherein the multi-tenant edge device is in headless mode. (paras. 46-48, 55-57; headless management of gateways.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Chaudhuri with the headless mode in order to protect against loss of connectivity. (Nath, para. 46)
With respect to Claim 14, it is substantially similar to Claim 7 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Alternate Grounds
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaudhuri (US Pub. 2014/0032785) in view of Kolar (US Pub. 2023/0327971), in view of Ramaswamy (US Pub. 2022/0360500) and further in view of Gandhi (US Pub. 2020/0084147).
With respect to Claim 1, Chaudhuri, Kolar, and Ramaswamy teach as above, but under this ground of rejection do not teach the probe embedding a Type Length Value (TLV) associated with the network service; independently of, and without receiving reachability information relayed via, an SD-WAN network controller.
Gandhi, however, does teach the probe embedding a Type Length Value (TLV) associated with the network service; (paras. 42-48, 56, 65, 95-97, 136; data packet includes MPLS header which has a PM Metadata TLV that carries delay and loss information.)
independently of, and without receiving reachability information relayed via, an SD-WAN network controller; (para. 71-72; egress node sends probe reply messages to ingress node to report measurement information. In some embodiments, it may also send to a network controller. Therefore, in some systems the network controller never even receives the measurement information, and in others the ingress node is informed independently of the controller. para. 39; SR Policy signaling to ingress node may be done via controller or via PCE.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Chaudhuri with the receiving reachability information without relay through a SD-WAN network controller in order to not have to employ a SD-Wan controller.
The same citation would apply, mutatis mutandis, to all other claims.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 8 that Ramaswamy does not teach amended Claim 1 because “Ramaswamy’s TLV pertains to link characteristics generally (e.g., attributes of a network link) and is not associated with a network service, nor is it used to determine whether a network service is reachable…”
The combination of references teaches the amended feature. Chaudhuri teaches a probe for reachability, but does not disclose the probe presenting data in TLV format. Ramaswamy teaches the TLV format. Further, Examiner disagrees that Ramaswamy on its own would fail to teach at least the reachability language because Ramaswamy does not teach just “general” link characteristics, but error and bandwidth, which are indicators of reachability.
The combination also teaches “independently of, and without receiving reachability information relayed via a SD-WAN network controller.” Applicant argues that the Chaudhuri GSS “is, at best, an example of the type of centralized, controller-mediated detection and remediation architecture that the present application identifies as conventional.” (Remarks, pg. 8)
Chaudhuri determines reachability without even employing a network controller in its system. Rather, one device sends out a probe and receives a response that indicates whether a device is reachable. Thus, the argument is unpersuasive on two levels. First, because the claim language only requires receiving reachability information in some manner other than being relayed by a SD-WAN network controller, which is not in the Chaudhuri system and therefore clearly taught by Chaudhuri, and second because the GSS is not a centralized architecture point. Instead each data center has a GSS that performs probing rather than a centralized controller monitoring the entire network.
The limitation is additionally obvious over the fact that Ramaswamy, which discloses sending, e.g., bandwidth and error TLV data in a system that does posit a network controller makes clear that the network controller does not have to be used, since the SD-WAN edge FE may generate transport groups using the links connected to it. While other embodiments may use the network controller to transmit link characteristics those are only embodiments of the greater disclosure.
Finally, Applicant amended Claim 5. Examiner cites Gandhi to teach amended Claim 5. Because Gandhi also teaches the newly amended limitations of Claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the prior limitation of a multi-tenant edge, Examiner will keep the primary ground of rejection as including Ramaswamy. Examiner notes that while Gandhi does not explicitly use the word “tenant,” Gandhi suggests a multi-tenant edge since it teaches an ingress node and a MPLS overlay which suggests the ingress node hosts multiple tenants. In short, Gandhi is a more complete teaching of the newly amended features in Claim 1 (which is unsurprising, as Gandhi is also a Cisco disclosure) but to compact prosecution and avoid shifting the argument as to whether a multi-tenant edge exists in a Chaudhuri/Kolar/Gandhi rejection, Examiner is content to create an alternate ground that includes both Ramaswamy and Gandhi where Gandhi is cited to the entirety of the newly amended limitations.
All claims are rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights