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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 7-8, 13, and 15-16 are amended as filed on 08/06/2026.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YERRAPUREDDY et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2023/0198889 A1), hereinafter Yerra, and further in view of Medved et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2012/0144066 A1), hereinafter Medved, and in further view of Du et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0065445 A1), hereinafter Du.
2. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 16, Yerra taught a method for providing paths to neighboring nodes in a multi-node network (0122), the method comprising: generating, in a control plane for the multi-area network, one or more Type-Length-Values for one or more networks in the multi-node network connected to a network in the multi-node network (0089, where the control plane can be seen in 0010); sending, from the control plane, the one or more TLVs to one or more nodes in the network (0075); generating, in the one or more nodes, one or more Link State Protocol data units, comprising at least one of the one or more TLVs (0075); flooding, from the one or more nodes, the network with the one or more LSPs (0060); and updating, in the network, a Link State Database for the network based on the one or more LSPs (0060 & 0105).
However, Yerra did not explicitly state that the nodes were area nodes and that the multi-node network was a multi-area network. On the other hand, Medved did teach that the nodes were area nodes and that the multi-node network was a multi-area network (0060). Both of the systems of Yerra and Medved are directed towards managing network traffic and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Yerra, to utilize managing multi-area networks, as Yerra likely already performs said features but it is not explicitly stated.
However, Yerra did not explicitly state wherein each of the one or more TLVs comprises a network area identifier for the network, one or more neighbor area IDs of the one or more networks, and one or more metrics for each one of the one or more neighbor area IDs. On the other hand, Du did teach wherein each of the one or more TLVs comprises a network area identifier for the network, one or more neighbor area IDs of the one or more networks, and one or more metrics for each one of the one or more neighbor area IDs (0029). Both of the systems of Yerra and Du are directed towards managing network traffic and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Yerra, to utilize specific TLV formats, as taught by Du, in order to promote efficiency in neighbor detection.
3. As for claims 2, 9, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Yerra taught advertising, in the LSDB, the one or more networks as accessible to the network (0090 & 0100).
4. As for claims 3, 10, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Yerra taught wherein at least one of the one or more nodes comprises a virtual node representing an additional network in the multi-area network to the network (0087).
5. As for claims 4 and 11, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 (respectively). In addition, Medved taught wherein at least one of the one or more nodes comprises a boundary node in the network, wherein the boundary node is on a boundary between the network and an additional network in the multi-area network (0117, where the boundary nodes are across network boundaries in accordance with 0004).
6. As for claims 5 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4 and 18 (respectively). In addition, Yerra taught generating, in the boundary node, one or more other LSPs, comprising at least one of the one or more TLVs; flooding, from the boundary node, the additional network in the multi-area network with the one or more other LSPs, wherein the additional network is adjacent to the network; and updating, in the additional network, an additional LSDB for the additional network based on the one or more other LSPs (0075 & 0089, where this is in a node and a node being a boundary node was previously shown by Medved: 0117).
7. As for claims 6, 14, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4, 11, and 18 (respectively). In addition, Yerra taught generating, in the boundary node, an additional LSP comprising a TLV for the network; flooding, from the boundary node, the additional network in the multi-area network with the LSP, wherein the additional network is adjacent to the network; and updating, in the additional network, an additional LSDB for the additional network based on the LSP (0075 & 0089, where this is in a node and a node being a boundary node was previously shown by Medved: 0117).
8. As for claims 7 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 (respectively). In addition, Yerra taught wherein one or more neighbor area IDs of the one or more networks, and one or more metrics for each one of the one or more neighbor area IDs comprises parameters for reaching the corresponding neighbor area (Du: 0029).
9. As for claim 12, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 11. In addition, Yerra taught wherein the boundary node is further configured to: generate one or more other LSPs, comprising at least one of the one or more TLVs (0075); and flood the additional network in the multi-area network with the one or more other LSPs, wherein the additional network is adjacent to the network (0060).
10. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 12. In addition, Yerra taught further comprising an additional node in the additional network configured to update an additional LSDB for the additional network based on the one or more other LSPs (0104-0105).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights