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
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 6/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of STEPHAN et al (US 2021/0273882).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
I. 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.
II. CLAIMS 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 16-17, 21, 23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (WO 2023/234997) in view of STEPHAN et al (US 2021/0273882).
Per claim 1, CHEN teaches a source address validation method, comprising:
receiving, by a first network device, a first packet, wherein the first packet arrives at the first network device on which a second network device serves as a source node and the first network device serves as a destination node, (paras 0004-5, 0012-14, 0054-55, 0066, 0086—sending and receiving a first link state advertisement, LSA, from a first source network node through a first interface and using the first LSA to create a row in the SAV table for forwarding paths with each prefix attached to the first source network node in the first LSA); and
adding, by the first network device, a source address validation (SAV) rule based on path information and the newly added path information, wherein the path information comprises a reachable path on which the first network device serves as a destination node (paras 0053-54—each node derives a SAV table and the SAV table stores SAV rules on the data plane based on the source and destination prefixes, calculate the forwarding paths through the OSPF domain and calculated, the forwarding paths are distributed to one or more of the network nodes, the router performs a SAV table lookup using the source prefix and the result from the SAV table lookup is an interface from which the packet received).
CHEN teaches the limitations as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach that claim features of “the first packet arrives at the first network device through a newly added path…and the first packet comprises newly added path information indicating the newly added path…with SAV rule based on the newly added path information”. However, STEPHAN et al teach establishing new and different communication paths through intermediate nodes using SAV transport security functions (paras 0065, 0071, 0075, 0078, page 5 Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CHEN with STEPHAN et al for the purpose of provisioning new or different communication paths, which is a well-known in the networking art for transmitting traffic.
Claims 10, 17 and 26 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 5, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, CHEN further teaches wherein the first packet further comprises information indicating an association device of the first packet, and the adding, by the first network device, an SAV rule based on path information and the newly added path information comprises: determining, by the first network device based on the newly added path information, that the source node of the first packet is the second network device; determining, by the first network device, the association device based on the information indicating the association device of the first packet and the path information; and adding, by the first network device, an SAV rule in which the second network device serves as a source prefix and an SAV rule in which the association device serves as a source prefix (paras 0005, 0031, 0048, 0053—OSPF uses LSA to exchange routing information between the router and nodes, constructing a SAV table by adding an entry for each prefix attached to a first node when the shortest path is computed from the network node to the first node in the reverse direction wherein each SAV table stores SAV rules; source information will be distributed through all possible forwarding paths originated from the source; STEPHAN et al: paras 0033-34, page 5 Table 2—updating the routing file using SAV transport security functions).
Claim 21 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 5, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, STEPHAN et al further teach the method comprising: updating, by the first network device, the path information based on the newly added path information (paras 0033-34, 0065, 0071, 0075, 0078—updating routing file with additional path data; CHEN: paras 0023, 0025, 0031, 0059, 0085, 0093—updating a SAV table by creating a row in the SAV table for each prefix, updating the routing and forwarding tables;).
Claims 16 and 23 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 7, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 9, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, CHEN further teaches wherein the newly added path information comprises an identifier of a network device on the newly added path, and the adding, by the first network device, a source address validation SAV rule based on path information and the newly added path information comprises: adding, by the first network device, the source address validation SAV rule based on the identifier of the network device on the newly added path and the path information (paras 0005, 0031, 0048, 0053, 0085—OSPF uses LSA to exchange routing information between the router and nodes, constructing a SAV table by adding an entry for each prefix attached to a first node when the shortest path is computed from the network node to the first node in the reverse direction wherein each SAV table stores SAV rules; updating a SAV table by creating a row in the SAV table for each prefix; STEPHAN et al: paras 0033-34, page 5 Table 2—updating the routing file using SAV transport security functions).
Claim 25 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 9, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
III. CLAIMS 2-4, 6, 8, 11-15, 18-20, 22, 24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (WO 2023/234997) in view of STEPHAN et al (US 2021/0273882) and ZHUANG et al (US 2025/0007836).
a. Per claim 2, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, as applied above, yet fails to explicitly teach the method “comprising: before the receiving, by the first network device, the first packet, receiving, by the first network device, a probe packet, wherein the probe packet arrives at the first network device through a probe path on which a probe device serves as a source node and the first network device serves as a destination node, and the probe packet comprises an identifier of a network device on the probe path; and obtaining, by the first network device, the path information based on the identifier of the network device on the probe path”.
ZHUANG et al teach that the validation devices receive a destination prefix probing (DPP) packet from the sending device, where the DPP packet includes the identifier of the sending device; determining the source address prefix based on the identifier in the DPP packet and the SPA packet, and the sending device sends a destination prefix probing (DPP) packet to the receiving device, where the DPP packet includes the identifier of the sending device (paras 0009, 0012, 0034, 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CHEN with STEPHAN et al and ZHUANG et al for the purpose of provisioning a probe packet in order to choose the best path for the address prefix, which is a well-known tool used in source address validation framework.
Claims 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 24, 27 and 29 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 2, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the adding, by the first network device, an SAV rule based on path information and the newly added path information comprises: determining, by the first network device based on the newly added path information, that the source node of the first packet is the second network device; determining, by the first network device, an association device of the first packet based on the path information and adding, by the first network device, an SAV rule in which the second network device serves as a source prefix and an SAV rule in which the association device serves as a source prefix (paras 0005, 0031, 0048, 0053, 0085), yet fail to explicitly teach “wherein a probe packet for which the association device serves as a source node arrives at the first network device after being forwarded by the second network device”.
ZHUANG et al teach that the validation devices receive a destination prefix probing (DPP) packet from the sending device, where the DPP packet includes the identifier of the sending device; determining the source address prefix based on the identifier in the DPP packet and the SPA packet, and the sending device sends a destination prefix probing (DPP) packet to the receiving device, where the DPP packet includes the identifier of the sending device (paras 0009, 0012, 0034, 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CHEN with STEPHAN et al and ZHUANG et al for the purpose of provisioning a probe packet in order to choose the best path for the address prefix, which is a well-known tool used in source address validation framework.
Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 3, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, CHEN with STEPHAN et al and ZHUANG et al teach the method according to claim 3, CHEN further teaches wherein the newly added path comprises a third network device, the first network device is a next-hop node of the third network device, and the adding, by the first network device, an SAV rule in which the second network device serves as a source prefix and an SAV rule in which the association device serves as a source prefix comprises: adding, by the first network device, a first SAV rule and a second SAV rule, wherein a source prefix field of the first SAV rule indicates the second network device, a valid ingress field of the first SAV rule indicates an interface path between the third network device and the first network device, a source prefix field of the second SAV rule indicates the association device, and a valid ingress field of the second SAV rule indicates an interface path between the third network device and the first network device (paras 0053-54—each node derives a SAV table and the SAV table stores SAV rules on the data plane based on the source and destination prefixes; paras 0009-10, 0064-66—the SAV table for each prefix with a next hop interface in the RIB/FIB, the node generates a third LSA based on the FIB/RIB, wherein the third LSA comprises a Paths Type-Length-Value with the node as a second source network node and a second plurality of destinations consisting of destination prefixes; ZHUANG et al: paras 0077, 0102—field values for determining valid next hop).
Claim 20 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 4, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 1, CHEN teaches comprising: sending, by the first network device, a request packet to a target device, wherein the target device is a network device indicated by a source prefix field in a newly added SAV rule; receiving, by the first network device, a target probe packet from the target device; and aging, by the first network device, a target SAV rule based on the target probe packet, wherein a sequence number of the target SAV rule is less than a sequence number of the target probe packet (paras 0025-28, 0053-54—each node derives a SAV table and the SAV table stores SAV rules on the data plane based on the source and destination prefixes; paras 0070-72, 0076-77—LS age field; ZHUANG et al: paras 0073, 0078-79, 0159, 0172, 0204—the one or more destination prefixes represent a list of the destination prefixes, the sequence number represents a sequence number of the destination prefix probing, DPP, protocol packet; receiving a destination prefix probing DPP packet from the receiving device, where the DPP packet includes the identifier of the sending device; paras 0077, 0102—field values for determining valid next hop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CHEN with STEPHAN et al and ZHUANG et al for the purpose of provisioning a probe packet in order to choose the best path for the address prefix, which is a well-known tool used in source address validation framework.
Claims 14, 22 and 30 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 6, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 12, CHEN with STEPHAN et al teach the method according to claim 10, as applied above, yet fail to further teach the method “further comprising: before the sending, by the second network device, the first packet to the first network device, sending, by the second network device, the first packet to the first network device at an interval of preset time”.
ZHUANG et al teach that the receiving device may adjust or modify the address validation mode of the interface in time based on the first alarm information and if no source address validation mode is configured on the interface through which the receiving device receives the SPA packet, the receiving device may output the first alarm information (paras 0099-100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of CHEN with STEPHAN et al and ZHUANG et al for the purpose of sending the first packet at an interval of preset time, wherein the sending of packets according to a timing interval or alarm feature is a well-known practice in the art.
Claim 28 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 12, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Conclusion
IV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0319312, US 2021/0089647; USPN 10764175; CA 3105508.
V. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. 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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights