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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/6/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis forthe claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 9 cites, "a computer-readable storage medium" the disclosure as originally filed fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Paragraph 0084 of the specification discloses “machine readable medium” not "a computer-readable storage medium".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 recites a system comprising: a first provider edge device configured to…a second provider edge device configured to…”. There aren’t any hardware elements associated with the cited system or first and second provider edge device. Therefore, the system being claimed is software per se which does not fall under any of the statutory categories defined under § 101. Software per se is not a useful process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Therefore claim 14 and its dependent claims are directed towards non- statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 15-20 depended on claim 14 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1,3-9,11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang (us 2015/0016461) in view of Lo et al (us 2025/0365227) (hereinafter Lo) and further in view of Seino (us 2019/0089674) (hereinafter Seino).
As regarding claim 1 Qiang disclose receiving a packet including a media access control (MAC) address (see Qiang 0033-0036, receive MAC address) determining whether or not the MAC address received meets a MAC duplication test (see Qiang 0033-0036,0038, determine if the received MAC is a duplicate MAC or not).
Qiang is silent in regard to the concept of responsive to determining that the MAC duplication test is met, suppressing a route advertisement of the MAC address to at least one other PE device in the EVPN, performing a configured corrective action with respect to the MAC address, and otherwise, responsive to determining that the MAC duplication test is not met, sending a route advertisement of the MAC address towards at least one other PE device in the EVPN.
Lo teaches the concept of responsive to determining that the MAC duplication test is met, suppressing a route advertisement of the MAC address to at least one other PE device in the EVPN (see Lo 0065, determine that the MAC address is a duplicate address, block or drop traffic), performing a configured corrective action with respect to the MAC address (see Lo 00654, block/drop address), and otherwise, responsive to determining that the MAC duplication test is not met, sending a route advertisement of the MAC address towards at least one other PE device in the EVPN (see Lo 0055, 0057,0063, PE advertise network reachability information of the network device to other PE, the reachability information such as MAC/IP address, route information of the device to other PE).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lo to Qiang because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Qiang with Lo's teaching for the purpose of to properly forward the network traffic (see Lo 0010).
The combination of Qiang-Lo is silent in regard to the concept of advertising, in a message to the at least one other PE device in the EVPN, that it has determined that the MAC address is a duplicate.
Seino teaches the concept of advertising, in a message to the at least one other PE device in the EVPN, that it has determined that the MAC address is a duplicate (see Seino 0067-0068, determine if MAC is duplicate address then sends notification to other device of the duplication).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Seino to Qiang-Lo because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Qiang-Lo with Seino's teaching for the purpose of suppressing an occurrence of MAC duplications (see Seino 0010).
As regarding claim 3, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the advertisement is, or is included in, a Type-2 MAC advertisement route (see Lo 0039, type 2 MAC route advertisement). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 3.
As regarding claim 4, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the advertisement is, or is included in, a MAC Mobility Extended Community path attribute (see Qiang 0039, MAC reachability extended community).
As regarding claim 5, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the advertisement is a set bit in the flags field of a MAC Mobility Extended Community path attribute (see Qiang 0039, type and value allocated by the MAC reachability extended community message).
As regarding claim 6, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses receiving by the PE device, a route advertisement of the MAC address from one of the at least one other PE devices in the EVPN (see Qiang 0035-0042, receive advertisement from other PE); and responsive to receiving the route advertisement of the MAC address from the one of the at least one other PE devices in the EVPN, determining whether or not the MAC address was already determined to be a duplicate that is subject to the configured corrective action (see Qiang 0038-0043, determine if MAC is a duplicate address), and responsive to determining that the MAC address was determined to be a duplicate that is subject to the configured corrective action, sending a counter Type-2 MAC advertisement to the one of the at least one other PE devices in the EVPN (see Seino 0067-0068, advertise/notify of the MAC duplication), and otherwise, responsive to determining that the MAC address was not determined to be a duplicate, processing the route advertisement of the MAC address normally (see Lo 0055, 0057,0063, PE advertise network reachability information of the network device to other PE, the reachability information such as MAC/IP address, route information of the device to other PE). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 6.
As regarding claim 7, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses determining whether or not the MAC address received meets a MAC duplication test is performed by detecting whether or not at least a predetermined number of MAC moves of the MAC address occur within a predetermined time period (see Lo 0036-0037, mobility event threshold which determine the number of MAC moves within a time period). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 7.
As regarding claim 8, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the configured corrective action with respect to the MAC address includes blocking traffic sourced from the MAC address and/or destined to the MAC address (see Lo 0065, block or drop traffic). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 8.
As regarding claims 9,11-13, limitations of claims 9,11-13 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3-8, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
As regarding claim 14, limitations of claim 14 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 1 above, Qiang-Lo-Seino further discloses a second PE device configured to receive the message advertised by the first PE device, and responsive to receiving the message advertised by the first PE device, perform a second configured corrective action with respect to the MAC address (see Lo 0063-0065, each of the PE receive from another PE, advertisement and determine if the received MAC is duplicate; block/drop traffic if the MAC is determined to be duplicate). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 14.
As regarding claim 15, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the first configured corrective action is the same as the second configured corrective action (see Lo 0065, Drop/block traffic from duplicate MAC). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 15.
As regarding claim 16, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the first configured corrective action and the second configured corrective action include blocking traffic sourced from the MAC address or destined to the MAC address (see Lo 0065, Drop/block traffic from duplicate MAC). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 16.
As regarding claim 17, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the first configured corrective action is different from the second configured corrective action (see Lo 0065, Drop/block traffic from duplicate MAC or remove host from the network). The same motivation was utilized in claim 1 applied equally well to claim 17.
As regarding claims 18-20, limitations of claims 18-20 are similar to limitations of rejected claims 1,3-8, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 2,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiang-Lo-Seino as applied to claims 1,9 above, and further in view of Patel et al (us 12,113,702) (hereinafter Patel).
As regarding claim 2, Qiang-Lo-Seino discloses the invention as claim in claim 1 above, however Qiang-Lo-Seino is silent in regard to the concept of PE device is a leaf node of a leaf and spine network.
Patel teaches the concept of PE device is a leaf node of a leaf and spine network (see Patel, col.3, lines 8-14, PE is a leaf node in spine/leaf topology).
It would have been obvious to one with an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Patel to Qiang-Lo-Seino because they're analogous art. A person would have been motivated to modify Qiang-Lo-Seino with Patel's teaching for the purpose deliver higher performance, scalability and reliability while reduce latency and operational cost.
As regarding claim 10, limitations of claim 10 are similar to limitations of rejected claim 2 above, therefore rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUYEN MY DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4226. The examiner can normally be reached (571)272-4226.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached at (571)272-4170. 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.
/DUYEN M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights