DETAILED ACTION
The current office action is in response to the communication filed on 1/10/25.
The applicant amended claims 10-12 and added claims 13-20 in the Preliminary Amendment received on 1/10/25.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 .
Paper Submitted
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 1/10/25 are considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on July 25, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202210878225.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Examiner recommends the following title: “METHOD FOR SETTING AN EGRESS OF A PACKET BASED ON INPUT DIRECTION OF THE PACKET.”
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “…a local egress…” in claim 2, lines 2-3, should be “…[[a]] the local egress…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
The limitation “…the access side…” in claim 10, line 2, should be “…[[the]] an access side…” (emphasis added) in order to resolve the lack of antecedent basis in the limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
All dependent claims are objected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Note: For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted based on the claim language suggested by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Yang” (US PGPUB 2021/0328922).
With respect to claim 1, Yang teaches a routing forwarding method (Abstract), comprising:
determining an input direction of a packet (a network device receives a first packet and determines if the first packet carries tunnel attribute information which indicates that the first packet is transmitted to the network device through a tunnel on a network side; [0103]-[0106]); and
in response to determining that the input direction is a tunnel side, setting an egress of the packet to a local egress (if the first packet carries tunnel attribute information, the network device forwards the first packet based on a first table. The first table includes one or more local routes, and next-hop outbound interfaces of the one or more local routes are all local outbound interfaces; [0105]-[0108]).
With respect to claim 2, Yang teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the input direction is an access side, setting the egress of the packet to a local egress or a tunnel egress (if the first packet does not carry the tunnel attribute information, the network device forwards the first packet based on a second table. The second table includes a plurality of routes, and the plurality of routes includes the one or more local routes and one or more routes whose next-hop outbound interfaces are remote outbound interfaces; [0111]-[0113]).
The limitations of claim 11 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Yang discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory (Fig. 10, [0154]-[0156]) as recited in claim 11.
The limitations of claim 12 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and this claim is rejected on that basis. Furthermore, Yang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program (Fig. 10, [0154]-[0156], [0163]) as recited in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of “Anand et al.” (US PGPUB 2013/0301641) (Hereinafter Anand).
With respect to claim 3, Yang teaches the method according to claim 1. Yang does not teach wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to a destination address of the local egress according to a redirection entry in an access control list.
However, Anand teaches wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to a destination address of the local egress according to a redirection entry in an access control list (an Access Control List (ACL), is a type of rules database made up of rules referred to as Access Control Entries (ACEs). The ACL is activated for one or more node interfaces on which inbound packets are received and it maps the inbound packets to outbound (destination) ports based on the source and/or destination IP addresses of the inbound packets. Thus, different ACEs are activated in dependence on the source/destination IP addresses of the inbound packets and the inbound packets become corresponding outbound packets (or are discarded) in accordance with the particular ACE(s) matched to the packet; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an access control list to Yang because Yang discloses using a routing table ([0105]) and Anand suggests using an access control list ([0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Anand in the Yang system in order to perform high-speed packet classification.
With respect to claim 4, Yang as modified teaches the method according to claim 3. Anand further teaches wherein the access control list comprises a destination address of at least one local egress (an Access Control List (ACL), is a type of rules database made up of rules referred to as Access Control Entries (ACEs). The ACL is activated for one or more node interfaces on which inbound packets are received and it maps the inbound packets to outbound (destination) ports based on the source and/or destination IP addresses of the inbound packets. Thus, different ACEs are activated in dependence on the source/destination IP addresses of the inbound packets and the inbound packets become corresponding outbound packets (or are discarded) in accordance with the particular ACE(s) matched to the packet; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an access control list to Yang because Yang discloses using a routing table ([0105]) and Anand suggests using an access control list ([0028]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Anand in the Yang system in order to perform high-speed packet classification.
Claims 5-8, 10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of “Haramaty et al.” (US PGPUB 2015/0372898) (Hereinafter Haramaty).
With respect to claim 5, Yang teaches the method according to claim 1. Yang does not teach wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the tunnel side, determining a destination address of the local egress in equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor and setting the egress of the packet to the destination address.
However, Haramaty teaches wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the tunnel side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the tunnel side, determining a destination address of the local egress in equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor and setting the egress of the packet to the destination address (switch calculates a hash function over one or more of packet fields and uses the hash result for selecting a respective egress interface; [0024], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate equal-cost multi-path information according to a hash factor to Yang because Yang discloses using equal-cost multi-path routing ([0109]) and Haramaty suggests using equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor ([0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Haramaty in the Yang system in order to distribute packets evenly and avoid overloading any single local egress.
With respect to claim 6, Yang as modified teaches the method according to claim 5. Haramaty further teaches wherein the preset hash factor is a number of local egresses (choosing an egress interface includes calculating a hash function having a number of hash results equal to a number of entries of the table that are mapped to egress interfaces that have a valid path to the destination; [0010], [0024], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0064]-[0066], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate equal-cost multi-path information according to a hash factor to Yang because Yang discloses using equal-cost multi-path routing ([0109]) and Haramaty suggests using equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor ([0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Haramaty in the Yang system in order to distribute packets evenly and avoid overloading any single local egress.
With respect to claim 7, Yang as modified teaches the method according to claim 5. Haramaty further teaches wherein the local egress is located in a start position of the equal-cost multi-path information (control unit selects the first egress interface that has a valid route to the destination; [0024], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate equal-cost multi-path information according to a hash factor to Yang because Yang discloses using equal-cost multi-path routing ([0109]) and Haramaty suggests using equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor ([0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Haramaty in the Yang system in order to distribute packets evenly and avoid overloading any single local egress.
With respect to claim 8, Yang as modified teaches the method according to claim 5. Haramaty further teaches wherein determining the destination address of the local egress in the equal-cost multi-path information according to the preset hash factor comprises: acquiring a number of local egresses to serve as the preset hash factor; and performing a hash match in the equal-cost multi-path information according to the number and taking a network address of the local egress as the destination address (choosing an egress interface includes calculating a hash function having a number of hash results equal to a number of entries of the table that are mapped to egress interfaces that have a valid path to the destination; [0010], [0024], [0029], [0047], [0054], [0064]-[0066], [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate equal-cost multi-path information according to a hash factor to Yang because Yang discloses using equal-cost multi-path routing ([0109]) and Haramaty suggests using equal-cost multi-path information according to a preset hash factor ([0054]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Haramaty in the Yang system in order to distribute packets evenly and avoid overloading any single local egress.
With respect to claim 10, Yang as modified teaches the method according to claim 5. Yang further teaches wherein equal-cost multi-path information used for forwarding a first packet from the access side is the same as equal-cost multi-path information used for forwarding a second packet from the tunnel side (network device includes two tables used to implement packet forwarding. The network device may generate the first table based on the second table. The network device forwards a first packet based on the first table and forwards a second packet based on the second table; [0107]-[0113]).
The limitations of claims 13-16 are rejected in the analysis of claims 5-8 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
The limitations of claims 17-20 are rejected in the analysis of claims 5-8 respectively and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of “Chen et al.” (US PGPUB 2022/0286396) (Hereinafter Chen).
With respect to claim 9, Yang teaches the method according to claim 2. Yang does not teach wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the access side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress or the tunnel egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the access side, determining a network address of the egress of the packet according to equal-cost multi-path information, wherein the network address comprises at least one of the local egress or the tunnel egress.
However, Chen teaches wherein in response to determining that the input direction is the access side, setting the egress of the packet to the local egress or the tunnel egress comprises: in response to determining that the packet is received from the access side, determining a network address of the egress of the packet according to equal-cost multi-path information, wherein the network address comprises at least one of the local egress or the tunnel egress (identifying an ECMP object from a destination address lookup. The ECMP object includes a plurality of paths for forwarding a packet. Determining that source interface associated with a private address is associated with IP packet and selecting the ECMP path having egress interface that matches source interface to maintain consistency between the source and forwarding interfaces; [0031]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate determining an egress address according to equal-cost multi-path information to Yang because Yang discloses using equal-cost multi-path routing ([0109]) and Chen suggests determining an egress address according to equal-cost multi-path information ([0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Chen in the Yang system in order to maintain consistency between the source and forwarding interfaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Grandhi et al. US 2014/0092738. Discloses maintaining load balancing after service application.
Iyer et al. US 2023/0254240. Discloses routing data packets through a network.
Assarpour. US 2010/0290458. Discloses providing fast reroute of a packet.
Zhang et al. US 2018/0097746. Discloses forwarding a packet across a network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnny B Aguiar whose telephone number is (571)272-3563. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Joon Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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.
/JOHNNY B AGUIAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights