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 .
Claim Interpretation
Per IFW specification (original claims 1, 10, 15 and 16) claimed limitations “wherein the route initially had no color designation” is very reasonably broadly interpretable and, furthermore, given scant support (original claims 1, 10, 15 and 16) any amendments will be scrutinized for new matter.
Furthermore, Per IFW specification (IFW [0017] (PGPub [0017]) and original claim 7) claim 7 limitation “originating the route, wherein the route is applicable to all colors” is very reasonably broadly interpretable and, furthermore, given scant support (IFW [0017] (PGPub [0017]) and original claim 7) any amendments will be scrutinized for new matter.
Furthermore, per IFW specification (IFW [0070] (PGPub [0070]) and original claim 9) claim 9 limitation “preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap” is very reasonably broadly interpretable and, furthermore, given scant support (IFW [0070] (PGPub [0070]) and original claim 9) any amendments will be scrutinized for new matter.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,323,317. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting claims are in a patent by the same inventive entity. Furthermore, where claims in the instant application are broader than the claims of the ‘317 patent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of the ‘317 patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 ("Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before").
Instant application
‘317 patent
claims 1, 8, 15 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method, comprising:
designating, by a network device, a route as a colored route having a color,
wherein the route initially had no color designation; and
advertising, by the network device, the colored route to an intermediate network device to cause the intermediate network device to propagate the colored route to an ingress network device over a colored border gateway protocol session.
claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein the color is a first color and the colored route is a first colored route, and further comprising:
designating the route as a second colored route having a second color; and
advertising the second colored route to a second intermediate network device to cause the second intermediate network device to propagate the second colored route to the ingress network device over a second colored border gateway protocol session.
claim 10, 16 (claim 10 exemplary)
The network device of claim 8, wherein the route initially had no color designation.
claims 1, 8, 14 (claim 1 exemplary)
A method, comprising:
originating, by a network device, a route;
pruning, by the network device, the route as a first colored route having a first color;
wherein a color was not initially designated for the route;
designating, by the network device, the route as the first colored route having the first color;
advertising, by the network device, the first colored route to a first intermediate network device to cause the first intermediate network device to propagate the first colored route to an ingress network device over a first colored border gateway protocol session,
wherein the first color belongs to the first colored border gateway protocol session;
designating, by the network device, the route as a second colored route having a second color; and
advertising, by the network device, the second colored route to a second intermediate network device to cause the second intermediate network device to propagate the second colored route to the ingress network device over a second colored border gateway protocol session.
claim 2
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors; and
advertising the multicolored route to one of the intermediate network device or another intermediate network device.
claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein designating the route as the colored route comprises:
selecting, from a plurality of colored routes, a best colored route as the colored route.
claim 2
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors; and
advertising the multicolored route to one of the first intermediate network device or the second intermediate network device.
claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein designating the route as the first colored route comprises:
selecting, from a plurality of first colored routes, a best first colored route as the first colored route.
claim 4
The method of claim 1, wherein designating the route as the second colored route comprises:
selecting, from a plurality of second colored routes, a best second colored route as the second colored route.
claim 5, 15, 20 (claim 5 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting a best first colored route from a plurality of first colored routes;
selecting a best second colored route from a plurality of second colored routes; and
advertising the best first colored route and the best second colored route to one of the first intermediate network device or the second intermediate network device.
claim 6, 17 (claim 6 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
advertising and pruning the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping.
claim 11
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further to:
prune the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping.
claim 6, 16 (claim 6 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
advertising and pruning one of the first colored route or the second colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping.
claim 7, 17 (claim 7 exemplary)
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
advertising and pruning the first colored route and the second colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping.
claim 9
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further to:
preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap.
claim 9
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further to:
preclude advertisement of the first colored route or the second colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the first colored route and the second colored route fail to include color overlap.
.
claim 12
The network device of claim 8, wherein the ingress network device is configured to map traffic to the colored route.
claim 11
The network device of claim 8, wherein the ingress network device is configured to map traffic to one of the first colored route or the second colored route.
claim 13, 19 (claim 13 exemplary)
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to advertise the colored route to the intermediate network device, are to:
utilize Internet protocol version 4 or Internet protocol version 6 prefixes to advertise the colored route to the intermediate network device.
claim 12, 18 (claim 12 exemplary)
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to advertise the first colored route to the first intermediate network device, are to:
utilize Internet protocol version 4 or Internet protocol version 6 prefixes to advertise the first colored route to the first intermediate network device.
claim 13, 19 (claim 19 exemplary)
The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or
more processors, to advertise the second colored route to the second intermediate network device, are to:
utilize Internet protocol version 4 or Internet protocol version 6 prefixes to advertise the second colored route to the second intermediate network device.
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, 8, 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11425022 to Singh et al. (“Singh”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385150 to Shrivastava et al. (“Shrivastava”).
As to claim 1, Singh discloses a method (Singh: fig 1-5), comprising:
designating, by a network device, a route as a colored route having a color, wherein the route initially had no color designation (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... network device 50 of fig 2, may receive packets via one or more ingress interface cards e.g., ones of IFCs 60 and forward packets via one or more egress interface cards e.g., ones of IFCs 60 the one or more egress interface cards hosting a set of tunnels e.g., tunnels 42, 44, 46 (designating, by a network device ...) (col 17 ll 28-47) ... color-based tunnel selection for uncolored payload prefixes considered as a special case (... a route as a colored route having a color ...) and using a tunnel selection scheme an uncolored payload prefix can select a colored or uncolored tunnel in a flexible manner (... wherein the route initially had no color designation) ... when a tunnel of color X cannot be found (... wherein the route initially had no color designation) a network operator may choose to continue the tunnel selection based on other mapping modes 308, e.g. a tunnel of another color Y (designating, by a network device, a route as a colored route having a color ...) a tunnel without a color, a tunnel of color X but with an Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4)-mapped Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) endpoint address, etc and these mapping modes 208 provide the network operator with the flexibility to take a full advantage of the tunnels in the network (designating, by a network device, a route as a colored route having a color, wherein the route initially had no color designation) (col 18 ll 31-43 & col 18 ll 53-56)).
Singh did not explicitly disclose advertising, by the network device, the colored route to an intermediate network device to cause the intermediate network device to propagate the colored route to an ingress network device over a colored border gateway protocol session.
Shrivastava discloses advertising, by the network device (Shrivastava: fig 1-4, [0015-43]: … controller 128 advertises BGP message including segment routing policy to an ingress router (advertising, by the network device ... to cause the intermediate network device to propagate the colored route to an ingress network device over a ... border gateway protocol session) [0037] …),
the colored route to an intermediate network device to cause the intermediate network device to propagate the colored route to an ingress network device over a colored border gateway protocol session (Shrivastava: fig 1-4, [0015-43]: … in response to receiving BGP message including segment routing policy, ingress router stores candidate paths learned from BGP message [0037] … ingress router typically stores selected path in routing table that stores colored paths referred to as color table or color routing table, for example, an egress address of a path, outgoing interface, and any labels attached (see with [0037] above - the colored route to an intermediate network device to cause the intermediate network device to propagate the colored route to an ingress network device over a colored border gateway protocol session) [0038]).
Singh and Shrivastava are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to border gateway protocol (BGP).
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate strategies by Shrivastava into the method by Singh. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide support use of segment routing policies in border gateway protocol (BGP) to provision non-colored segment routing label switched paths (LSPs) (Shrivastava: [0019]).
As to claims 8 and 10, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the device is taught by the method.
As to claims 15-16, see similar rejection to claim 1 where the medium is taught by the method.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11425022 to Singh et al. (“Singh”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385150 to Shrivastava et al. (“Shrivastava”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0273827 to Vairavakkalai et al. (“KV”).
As to claim 2, Singh and Shrivastava disclose the method of claim 1.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Singh did not explicitly disclose designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors.
KV discloses designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... techniques disclosed herein enable the advertisement of multiple tunnels to the same destination (designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors) [0019] ... first network device 20 distributes routing protocol messages that comprise a payload prefix specifying the one or more service parameters e.g., a service color or service type associated with one or more services associated with network traffic (see with [0019] above - designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors) ... may include information which indicates one or more service colors that identify one or more services associated with a packet (see with [0019] above - designating the route as a multicolored route having multiple colors) [0033]).
Singh, Shrivastava and KV are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to use of color.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate strategies by KV into the method by Singh and Shrivastava. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide the use of color to group tunnels that is referred to herein as tunnel coloration (KV: [0033]).
Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose advertising the multicolored route to one of the intermediate network device or another intermediate network device (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... Transport Family: BGP address family used for advertising tunnels, which are in turn used by service routes for resolution (advertising the multicolored route to ...) [0052] ... techniques of the disclosure enable a network system to build multiple colored transport planes across multiple domains (see with [0052] above - ... to one of the intermediate network device or another intermediate network device) in a scalable fashion without extensive changes to deployed network devices [0072]).
Same motivation applies as mentioned above to make the proposed modification.
As to claim 4, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 4, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose wherein the color is a first color and the colored route is a first colored route (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... first network device 20 may distribute routing protocol messages that comprise a payload prefix specifying the one or more (1st 2nd ... n) service parameters e.g., a service color (1st 2nd ... n color(s)) or service type associated with one or more services associated with network traffic (wherein the color is a 1st 2nd ... n color(s) and the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s)) [0033]), and further comprising:
designating the route as a second colored route having a second color (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... first network device 20 may distribute routing protocol messages that comprise a payload prefix specifying the one or more (1st 2nd ... n) service parameters e.g., a service color (1st 2nd ... n color(s)) or service type associated with one or more services associated with network traffic (designating the route as a 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) having a 1st 2nd ... n color(s)) [0033]); and
advertising the second colored route to a second intermediate network device to cause the second intermediate network device to propagate the second colored route to the ingress network device over a second colored border gateway protocol session (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... Transport Family: BGP address family used for advertising tunnels (see with [0033] above - advertising the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to a 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to cause the 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to propagate the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to the ingress network device over a 1st 2nd ... n colored border gateway protocol session(s)) which are in turn used by service routes for resolution (see with [0033] above - advertising the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to a 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to cause the 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to propagate the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to the ingress network device over a 1st 2nd ... n colored border gateway protocol session(s)) [0052] ... techniques of the disclosure enable a network system to build multiple colored transport planes across multiple domains (see with [0052;33] above - see with [0033] above - advertising the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to a 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to cause the 1st 2nd ... n intermediate network device(s) to propagate the 1st 2nd ... n colored route(s) to the ingress network device over a 1st 2nd ... n colored border gateway protocol session(s)) in a scalable fashion without extensive changes to deployed network devices [0072]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 5, see similar rejection to claims 2 and 4.
As to claim 5, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... in a network using BGP to advertise payload prefixes transporting the packets of a prefix from network device to a network device (... fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) such as a next hop router, relies on the selection of a transport tunnel and this selection is normally based on the prefix's BGP next hop IP address and some constraints and one such constraint is the color which is encoded in the Color Extended Community ... color is a generic notion which may represent any characteristic or property of the network, such as virtual topology (logic fabric) (wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) (col 17 ll 48-65) ... disclosure defines a set of extended mapping modes 308 for flexible color-based tunnel selection and each mode specifies how a payload prefix's endpoint IPv4 or IPv6 address ... and color are used to select a tunnel (see with col 17 ll 48-65 above - wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) (col 18 ll 57-67) ... each of tunnels 42, tunnels 44, and tunnels 46 collectively, "tunnels 42, 44, 46" provide a network overlay (logic fabric) between first network device 20 and second network device (see with col 17 ll 48-65 & col 18 ll 57-67 above - wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs);
KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... tunnels 42, 44, 46 may be signaled, for example, using any combination of ... Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)-Labeled Unicast (BGP-LU), BGP Segment Routing-Traffic Engineering (BGP SR-TE) (... fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) [0032] ... services may correspond to one or more "service colors" and tunnels may correspond to one or more "tunnel colors" and colors are generic labels which identify a respective service or tunnel as being a part of a common type ... the use of "color" to group tunnels is referred to herein as "tunnel coloration" (see with [0032] above - wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) [0034] ... service routes 102A-102B collectively, "service routes 102", and which also may be referred to herein as "overlay routes" are logical routes (logic fabric) from a service host device 22 that generates network traffic associated with a particular network service to a customer edge device 32 that receives the network traffic associated with the network service (see with [0032; 34] above - wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) [0035] ... a routing protocol message that specifies a transport route for defining a transport class 86 e.g., via a BGP transport-VPN family (logic fabric) ... BGP VPN routing instance is used as a container for transport RIBs 200 and BGP VPN routing instance imports and exports routes in each transport RIB 200 with a corresponding transport class RT (see with [0032; 34-35] above - wherein the color is based on a color of a logic fabric to which a border gateway protocol session belongs) [0087;92]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 6, see similar rejection to claims 2 and 4-5.
As to claim 6, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose advertising and pruning the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... each transport class 86 is defined as a set of transport tunnels 42, 44, 46 that share (overlap) certain characteristics (i.e. pruning the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on ... overlapping) ... and correspond to a service color of a network service of a plurality of network services (i.e. pruning the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping)... control unit 70 may then advertise these transport routes via a routing protocol message such as BGP (advertising and pruning the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session based on color overlapping) [0084]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 7, see similar rejection to claims 2 and 4-6.
As to claim 7, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose originating the route, wherein the route is applicable to all colors (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... tunnel selection scheme may also be provisioned on the BGP next hop network device or central controller 10 where UPDATE message 400 of the payload prefix is originated (originating the route) and disclosure sets forth a "Flexible Color Tunnel Selection" attribute to carry the information in UPDATE message 400 (col 21 ll 54-59) ... a new TLV, the Extended Mapping Mode TLV, is described ... extended mapping mode 406 specifies one of the following types or categories of extended mapping modes: (1) IP-color; (2) Color-only; (3) IP-any-color; (wherein the route is applicable to all colors) (4) IP-only; (5) Converted-IPv6; (6) Converted-IPv6-color; (7) Converted-IPv6-any-color; (wherein the route is applicable to all colors) (8) Color-profile.(col 22 ll 15-32));
Shrivastava: fig 1-4, [0015-43]: ... controller 128 advertises the BGP message including a segment routing policy to an ingress router, e.g. ingress router 12A and for example, a route target extended community attached to the BGP message indicates the intended ingress router of the BGP message [0037] ... ingress router selects a path from the candidate paths for the segment routing policy based on one or more attributes including local preference, originate (originating the route) ... the BGP message includes a policy color e.g., specified by the policy color field [0038] ... for example, the NLRI of the BGP message incorporated above includes a policy color field that is 4 octets with a bit range from 0 to 4,294,967,295 (all colors) and device may specify a designated value, for example, as a maximum value of the policy color field (e.g., 4,294,967,295) (wherein the route is applicable to all colors) that causes the ingress router to store the one or more candidate paths of the segment routing policy in a non-color table [0041]).
As to claim 9, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 9, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap (KV: fig 1-5, [0013-155]: ... each transport class 86 is defined as a set of transport tunnels 42, 44, 46 that share (overlap) certain characteristics (i.e. preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap) ... and correspond to a service color of a network service of a plurality of network services (i.e. preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap)... control unit 70 may then advertise these transport routes via a routing protocol message such as BGP (preclude advertisement of the colored route over a colored border gateway protocol session when the colored route fails to include color overlap) [0084]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 6.
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 12, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose wherein the ingress network device is configured to map traffic to the colored route (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... service routes can be colored either on a tunnel ingress or on a tunnel egress by using a policy and controller 10 may signal a service color using an extended color community that is attached to the NLRI (col 24 ll 64-67) ... tunnels that a user wishes to use for service-mapping are be colored with a number and a tunnel may be colored with multiple colors (col 25 ll 8-21)).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claims 8-12.
As to claim 13, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose utilize Internet protocol version 4 or Internet protocol version 6 prefixes to advertise the colored route to the intermediate network device (Shrivastava: fig 1-4, [0015-43]: ... a prefix may be an address or block of addresses and prefix corresponding to a node e.g., a router may comprise an Internet Protocol (IP) address e.g., IPv4 or IPv6, a block of IP addresses, or another type of data identifying the node ... a router in network 100 may advertise its prefix (utilize Internet protocol version 4 or Internet protocol version 6 prefixes to advertise ...) and SID to neighboring routers within the same one of domains 114 of network 100 [0027] ... controller 128 may advertise a BGP message e.g., BGP update message specifying information ... the BGP message may include ... for example, an NLRI length, route distinguisher, policy color, and endpoint (... to advertise the colored route to the intermediate network device) [0035] ... because the BGP message includes a policy color e.g., specified by the policy color field the ingress router typically stores the selected path in a routing table that stores colored paths referred to herein as "color table" or "color routing table" (... to advertise the colored route to the intermediate network device) [0038]).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 14, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose advertise all routes for a border gateway protocol session prior to designating the colored route (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... in the definitions of the extended mapping modes 308 below, N represents a payload prefix's endpoint IPv4 or IPv6 address, and C represents its color, if applicable and uncolored payload prefix does not have a color and each extended mapping mode 308 may involve multiple steps or sublevel fallback within it and mode 308 is completed as soon as a tunnel is successfully selected in a certain step, and the following steps are not executed and following sets forth different types e.g., or categories by which mapping modes may be categorized as ... IP-any-color and this type allows a network device to map a service to a tunnel that matches a specified endpoint address prefix and comprises a tunnel color of any value e.g., not uncolored and an example algorithm is set forth below: select a tunnel whose endpoint address is N and who has a color of any value (col 19 ll 4-13 & col 19 ll 37-42)).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 6 where the medium is taught by the method.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claims 15-17.
As to claim 18, Singh, Shrivastava and KV further disclose wherein the ingress network device utilizes a border gateway protocol-labeled unicast (LU) tunnel for mapping ingress traffic (Singh: fig 1-5, col 4 through col 38: ... tunnel coloring can be done using ... per-tunnel configuration at the ingress router ... for tunnels that are dynamically learned, tunnel coloring may be performed using a policy on a tunnel ingress, e.g., for LDP or tunnel coloring may be performed on a tunnel egress using a policy and signaling the color using a tunnel-encapsulation attribute may be, for example, BGP SR-TE or BGP-LU (wherein the ingress network device utilizes a border gateway protocol-labeled unicast (LU) tunnel for mapping ingress traffic) (col 24 ll 55-63)).
For motivation, see rejection of claim 2.
As to claims 19-20, see similar rejection to claims 13-14, respectively.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11425022 to Singh et al. (“Singh”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0385150 to Shrivastava et al. (“Shrivastava”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0258249 to Torvi et al. (“Torvi”).
As to claim 3, Singh and Shrivastava disclose the method of claim 1.
For motivation, see rejection of claim 1.
Singh did not explicitly disclose selecting, from a plurality of colored routes, a best colored route as the colored route.
Specifically, Singh discloses a controller 128 or in some instances an egress router or route reflector may use border gateway protocol (BGP) to advertise a segment routing policy ... network layer reachability information (NLRI) identifies the segment routing policy ... for example, an NLRI length, route distinguisher, policy color, and endpoint (selecting, from a plurality of colored routes ...) (Singh: [0035]) ... if the advertisement represents a new best path, the router may update a routing table in response to the advertisement such that the routing table indicates a next hop in the route to the prefix (see with [0035] above - ... a best colored route as the colored route) (Singh: [0027]).
Nonetheless, Singh did not explicitly disclose selecting, from a plurality of colored routes, a best colored route as the colored route.
For clarity, Torvi discloses selecting, from a plurality of colored routes, a best colored route as the colored route (Torvi: fig 1-16, [103-166]: ... when a BGP border node receives a prefix NLRI with the SR BGP Prefix TLV with the algorithm field set e.g. Algorithm ID=128 for RED constraint, or Algorithm ID=129 for GREEN constraint (selecting, from a plurality of colored routes ...) ... the BGP path selection process can inspect the paths that meet the FAD constraint(s) and determine e.g., select the best one (... a best colored route as the colored route) [0163]).
Singh, Shrivastava and Torvi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to use of color.
Before the effective filing date, for AIA , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate strategies by Torvi into the method by Singh and Shrivastava. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide BGP path selection process can inspect the paths that meet the FAD (i.e. colors) constraint(s) and determine e.g., select the best one (Torvi: [0163]).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A) US 20260128979 – Gamage
Systems and methods are provided for flexible and scalable Automatic Next-Hop Resolution (ANR) in Traffic Engineering (TE) networks using color-templates. A Customer Edge (CE) router associates a color with an advertised prefix and communicates the colored prefix to a node in a service provider network, such as a Provider Edge (PE) router or Border Router (BR). Upon receipt of the colored prefix, the node requests a controller to generate a Segment Routing (SR) policy or tunnel based on a color-template corresponding to the color. The controller maintains the color-templates, computes paths subject to template-defined parameters and constraints, and returns SR policy or tunnel information for installation at the requesting node. When the CE changes the color associated with the prefix, the node triggers generation of a new policy or tunnel based on the updated color-template. Default templates and template update handling are also supported, reducing provider-side configuration and improving operational scalability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUNE SISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5693. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/JUNE SISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights