CTNF 19/057,251 CTNF 70387 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Authorization for Internet Communication In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. 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. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9762537 (Eyada) in view of US 6112249 (Bader) . Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Eyada teaches or suggests a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory 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 (4:23-25) comprising: determining that a network comprising a first router, a second router, and a third router (fig. 1 shows at least three routers) is operating in a service mode (1:24-29 security services); determining, based on a data policy stored on the first router (20:14-19 edge router policies), first data representing that a first path is associated with transmission from the first router to the second router when the network is operating in the service mode, the first path comprising the third router (fig. 1 shows paths between routers 12A and 12E, each path including at least one intermediate router); and based on determining the first data and that the first path is active, transmitting a packet from the first router to the second router using the first router. (fig. 4, no. 92 forward traffic via established path). Eyada does not expressly disclose but Bader teaches or suggests: determining, based on a forwarding information base (FIB) table stored on the first router, that the first path is active (9:63-10:2 tables indicate path is active). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Eyada’s system and Bader’s table in order to identify available paths. Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Eyada teaches or suggests the first router storing the data policy is an edge router (fig. 1, no. 12A). Regarding claims 6 and 13, Eyada teaches or suggests the second router is a service router (fig. 1, no. 12E) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9762537 (Eyada) in view of US 6112249 (Bader) further in view of US 20220400086 (Nandy) . Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Eyada does not expressly disclose but Nandy teaches or suggests storing the data policy on the first router comprises transmitting the data policy from a virtual routing controller associated with the network to the first router (¶ 13). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Eyada’s system, Bader’s table, and Nandy’s transmitting to centralize configuring. Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Nandy teaches or suggests the virtual routing controller stores a control policy associated with the network (¶ 13) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9762537 (Eyada) in view of US 6112249 (Bader) further in view of US 20160294677 (Kazerani) . Eyada does not expressly disclose but Kazerani teaches or suggests the data policy comprises one or more advanced policy-based reasoning (PBR) rules (¶ 36). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Eyada’s system, Bader’s table, and Kazerani’s PBR to configure the data policy. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Eyada’s system, Bader’s table, and Nandy’s transmitting to centralize configuring. Other Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 11245614 manages routing rules stored by a routing device and used to manage network traffic in a network (abs). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630. 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 email the Examiner. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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. /LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457 . Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 2 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 3 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 4 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 5 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 6 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 7 Art Unit: 2457 Application/Control Number: 19/057,251 Page 8 Art Unit: 2457
