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 .
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Application 19287116 and US Patent 12381810
Claim 1 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the Claim 1 in the instant application 19287116 “the first router being configured to: determine that a route to a resource is to be cloaked; advertise the withdrawal of the route; retain the route in storage; determine whether a sufficiency criterion is met”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12381810 “a first router, comprising at least one processing circuit and memory, operatively connected to the at least one processing circuit, the first router being configured to: determine that a route to a resource is to be cloaked; advertise the withdrawal of the route; retain the route in storage; determine whether a sufficiency criterion is met” have similar subject matters.
Limitations of the Claim 1 in the instant application 19287116 “when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is met prior to expiration of a time interval, advertise the route; and when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is not met prior to the expiration of the time interval, delete the route in storage”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12381810 “when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is met prior to expiration of a time interval, advertise the route; and when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is not met prior to the expiration of the time interval, delete the route in storage” have similar subject matters.
Claim 2 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 2 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the advertising of the withdrawal comprises transmitting a withdrawal advertisement including an attribute indicating that the route has been cloaked”, and the limitations in claim 2 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the advertising of the withdrawal comprises transmitting a withdrawal advertisement including an attribute indicating that the route has been cloaked” have similar subject matters.
Claim 3 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 3 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the advertisement includes an attribute indicating the time interval”, and the limitations in claim 3 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the advertisement includes an attribute indicating the time interval” have similar subject matters.
Claim 4 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 4 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the first router is part of a first autonomous system further configured to advertise the withdrawal of the route to at least a second router in a different autonomous system”, and the limitations in claim 4 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the first router is part of a first autonomous system further configured to advertise the withdrawal of the route to at least a second router in a different autonomous system” have similar subject matters.
Claim 5 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 5 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the sufficiency criterion comprises receiving at least a first petition to resume supporting the route”, and the limitations in claim 1 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the determining whether a sufficiency criterion is met comprises determining whether at least a plurality of petitions have been received by the first router, wherein the plurality of petitions supports resuming the route” have similar subject matters.
Claim 6 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 6 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the receiving of the first petition comprises receiving the first petition with authentication”, and the limitations in claim 5 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the receiving of the plurality of petitions comprises receiving the plurality of petitions with authentication” have similar subject matters.
Claim 7 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 7 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the receiving of the first petition comprises receiving the petition as a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) update message with a “community” attribute set to signal an authenticated petition”, and the limitations in claim 6 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the receiving of the plurality of petitions comprises receiving the plurality of petitions as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) update messages with a “community” attribute set to signal an authenticated petition” have similar subject matters.
Claim 8 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 8 in the instant application 19287116 “further comprising a network management system, connected to the first router”, and the limitations in claim 9 in the US Patent 12381810 “a network management system, connected to the first router” have similar subject matters.
Claim 9 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 9 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the network management system is configured: to detect that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route; and to report that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route”, and the limitations in claim 10 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the network management system is configured: to detect that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route; and to report that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route” have similar subject matters.
Claim 10 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 10 in the instant application 19287116 “the route is a first route to a network; a second router is configured to provide a second route to the network; and the network management system is configured: to determine that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold; and in response to determining that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold, to send the first petition”, and the limitations in claim 11 in the US Patent 12381810 “the route is a first route to a network; a second router is configured to provide a second route to the network; and the network management system is configured: to determine that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold; and in response to determining that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold, to send a first petition of the plurality of petitions” have similar subject matters.
Claim 11 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 11 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the determining that the route is to be cloaked comprises receiving an instruction to cloak the route”, and the limitations in claim 12 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the determining that the route is to be cloaked comprises receiving an instruction to cloak the route” have similar subject matters.
Claim 12 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 12 in the instant application 19287116 “the route is a first route to a network; and the network management system is configured: to determine that the route is no longer needed; to determine that a size of the network exceeds a threshold; and in response to determining that the network size exceeds a threshold, to instruct the first router to cloak the route”, and the limitations in claim 13 in the US Patent 12381810 “the route is a first route to a network; and the network management system is configured: to determine that the route is no longer needed; to determine that a size of the network exceeds a threshold” have similar subject matters.
Claim 13 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the Claim 13 in the instant application 19287116 “a first router, the first router being configured: to receive a first message, indicating that a second router is withdrawing a first route, to a first resource; to store the first route as a candidate for a petition to resume supporting the first route; to determine that a set time has elapsed; to delete the first route from a list of candidates for petitions; to receive a second message, indicating that a third router is withdrawing a second route, the second route being a route to a second resource; to determine that it is no longer able to reach the second resource; and to send, to the third router, a petition to resume supporting the second route”, and the limitations in claim 14 in the US Patent 12381810 “a first router, the first router being configured to: receive a first message, indicating that a second router is withdrawing a first route, to a first resource; store the first route as a candidate for a petition to resume supporting the first route; determine that a set time has elapsed; delete the first route from a list of candidates for petitions; receive a second message, indicating that a third router is withdrawing a second route, the second route being a route to a second resource; determine that the first router is no longer able to reach the second resource; and send, to the third router, a petition to resume supporting the second route” have similar subject matters.
Claim 14 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the Claim 14 in the instant application 19287116 “determining, by a first router, that a route is to be cloaked; advertising the withdrawal of the route; and retaining the route in storage;
determining whether a sufficiency criterion is met; and when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is met prior to expiration of a time interval, advertising the route; and when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is not met prior to the expiration of the time interval, deleting the route in storage”, and the limitations in claim 15 in the US Patent 12381810 “determining, by a first router, that a route is to be cloaked; advertising, by the first router, the withdrawal of the route; retaining, by the first router, the route in storage; determining, by the first router, whether a sufficiency criterion is met, when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is met prior to expiration of a time interval, advertising, by the first router, the route; and when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is not met prior to the expiration of the time interval, deleting, by the first router, the route in storage” have similar subject matters.
Claim 15 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 15 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the advertising of the withdrawal comprises transmitting a withdrawal advertisement including an attribute indicating that the route has been cloaked”, and the limitations in claim 16 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the advertising of the withdrawal comprises transmitting a withdrawal advertisement including an attribute indicating that the route has been cloaked” have similar subject matters.
Claim 16 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 16 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the advertisement includes an attribute indicating the time interval”, and the limitations in claim 17 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the advertisement includes an attribute indicating the time interval” have similar subject matters.
Claim 17 is non-provisionally (anticipated) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of US Patent 12381810.
Limitations of the claim 17 in the instant application 19287116 “wherein the first router is part of a first autonomous system further configured to advertise the withdrawal of the route to at least a second router in a different autonomous system”, and the limitations in claim 18 in the US Patent 12381810 “wherein the first router is part of a first autonomous system further configured to advertise the withdrawal of the route to at least a second router in a different autonomous system” have similar subject matters.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Borgione et al. (“Borgione”, US 20160308767 A1) hereinafter Borgione, in view of Suryanarayana et al. (“Suryanarayana”, US 10200274 B1) hereinafter Suryanarayana.
Regarding claim 1, Borgione teaches a system, comprising:
a first router, comprising at least one processing circuit and memory, operatively connected to the at least one processing circuit ([0021] the computing devices (102A-102F), housed in racks (104A-104C), may be servers. A server may include a processor, memory, and one or more physical network interfaces)(Fig. 5),
the first router being configured to (Fig. 2, network device)(Fig. 5):
determine that a route to a resource is to be cloaked ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302);
advertise the withdrawal of the route ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302);
retain the route in storage ([0026-0027] Routing information base RIB)([0025] The forwarding information base (FIB) (206) is a hardware-implemented database containing the route entries to be used by the network device for making routing decisions);
Borgione does not explicitly teach, but Suryanarayana teaches
the determine whether a sufficiency criterion is met ([Col. 11 Lines 35-45] session is restored between nodes before timer expires)([Col. 13 Lines 30-55] session is closed or restored with timer running)([Col. 16 Lines 1-5] If an End of RIB message is not received before the expiration of the timer 68 associated with the XMPP session 64, XMPP 70A deletes from routing information 65 all stale virtual routes from the XMPP session)([Col. 23 Lines 1-20] The SDN controller may set a timer associated with the messaging protocol session upon detecting the session has closed, and the SDN controller may delete any stale virtual routes that have not yet been updated by the virtual router agent by the time the timer expires.); and
when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is met prior to expiration of a time interval, advertise the route ([Col. 8 Lines 1-15] The learned routes are marked as stale and continued to be used by the rest of the network, including by SDN gateway 8. This gives time for the down VR agent 36 to come back up, and re-advertise the relevant routes. SDN controller 32 maintain timers for each XMPP session with the VR agents 36, which SDN controller 32 uses to purge entries from routing information that is not refreshed by the respective VR agent 36 within a configured time period)([Col. 1 Lines 20-28] SDN controller 32 does not delete the virtual routes learned from the VR agent 36 and also does not withdraw the virtual routes from advertised peers for certain period); and
when it is determined that the sufficiency criterion is not met prior to the expiration of the time interval, delete the route in storage ([Col. 8 Lines 1-15] The learned routes are marked as stale and continued to be used by the rest of the network, including by SDN gateway 8. This gives time for the down VR agent 36 to come back up, and re-advertise the relevant routes. SDN controller 32 maintain timers for each XMPP session with the VR agents 36, which SDN controller 32 uses to purge entries from routing information that is not refreshed by the respective VR agent 36 within a configured time period)([Col. 1 Lines 20-28] SDN controller 32 does not delete the virtual routes learned from the VR agent 36 and also does not withdraw the virtual routes from advertised peers for certain period) ([Col. 11 Lines 35-45] session is restored between nodes before timer expires)([Col. 13 Lines 30-55] session is closed or restored with timer running)([Col. 16 Lines 1-5] If an End of RIB message is not received before the expiration of the timer 68 associated with the XMPP session 64, XMPP 70A deletes from routing information 65 all stale virtual routes from the XMPP session)([Col. 23 Lines 1-20] The SDN controller may set a timer associated with the messaging protocol session upon detecting the session has closed, and the SDN controller may delete any stale virtual routes that have not yet been updated by the virtual router agent by the time the timer expires.).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 2, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 1,
Although Borgione teaches timer, but does not teach the whole limitation, however Suryanarayana teaches
wherein the advertising of the withdrawal comprises transmitting a withdrawal advertisement including an attribute indicating that the route has been cloaked ([Col. 15 Lins 25-50] XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods)([Col. 5 lines 52-60] The time periods for each of timers 68 will be set for the graceful restart times received via the XMPP capabilities messages.)([Col. 17 Lines 25-50] XMPP process 98 uses the GR restart times to set the time intervals for timers 86. This exchange of XMPP capabilities messages gives an indication to the other end as to how long the receiver should keep the learned virtual routes as ‘stale’ before eventually purging them out).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 3, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 2,
Although Borgione teaches timer, but does not teach the whole limitation, however Suryanarayana teaches
wherein the advertisement includes an attribute indicating the time interval ([Col. 15 Lins 25-50] XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods)([Col. 5 lines 52-60] The time periods for each of timers 68 will be set for the graceful restart times received via the XMPP capabilities messages.)([Col. 17 Lines 25-50] XMPP process 98 uses the GR restart times to set the time intervals for timers 86. This exchange of XMPP capabilities messages gives an indication to the other end as to how long the receiver should keep the learned virtual routes as ‘stale’ before eventually purging them out).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 4, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 3,
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
wherein the first router is part of a first autonomous system further configured to advertise the withdrawal of the route to at least a second router in a different autonomous system ([Fig. 4] 64 A, 64 B, different routes).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 5, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 1,
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
wherein the sufficiency criterion comprises receiving at least a first petition to resume supporting the route ([Col. 11 Lines 35-45] session is restored between nodes before timer expires)([Col. 13 Lines 30-55] session is closed or restored with timer running)([Col. 16 Lines 1-5] If an End of RIB message is not received before the expiration of the timer 68 associated with the XMPP session 64, XMPP 70A deletes from routing information 65 all stale virtual routes from the XMPP session)([Col. 23 Lines 1-20] The SDN controller may set a timer associated with the messaging protocol session upon detecting the session has closed, and the SDN controller may delete any stale virtual routes that have not yet been updated by the virtual router agent by the time the timer expires.);.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 8, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 1,
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
a network management system, connected to the first router (Fig. 1, SDN controller, Orchestration Engine, Administrator).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 9, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 8,
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
wherein the network management system is configured:
to detect that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route ([Col. 8 Lines 1-15] The learned routes are marked as stale and continued to be used by the rest of the network, including by SDN gateway 8. This gives time for the down VR agent 36 to come back up, and re-advertise the relevant routes. SDN controller 32 maintain timers for each XMPP session with the VR agents 36, which SDN controller 32 uses to purge entries from routing information that is not refreshed by the respective VR agent 36 within a configured time period)([Col. 1 Lines 20-28] SDN controller 32 does not delete the virtual routes learned from the VR agent 36 and also does not withdraw the virtual routes from advertised peers for certain period) ([Col. 11 Lines 35-45] session is restored between nodes before timer expires)([Col. 13 Lines 30-55] session is closed or restored with timer running)([Col. 16 Lines 1-5] If an End of RIB message is not received before the expiration of the timer 68 associated with the XMPP session 64, XMPP 70A deletes from routing information 65 all stale virtual routes from the XMPP session)([Col. 23 Lines 1-20] The SDN controller may set a timer associated with the messaging protocol session upon detecting the session has closed, and the SDN controller may delete any stale virtual routes that have not yet been updated by the virtual router agent by the time the timer expires) and
to report that the first router has received a first petition to resume supporting the route ([Col. 12 Lines 25-50] control nodes 54 receive configuration state information of SDN controller 32 from configuration nodes 32, and exchange routes with each other via IBGP to ensure that all control nodes 54 have the same network state. Further, control nodes 54 exchange routes with VR agents 36 on servers 26 via XMPP. Control nodes 54 also communicate the configuration state information, such as routing instances and forwarding policy, to VR agents 36, e.g., via XMPP, for installation within respective virtual routers 42. In some examples, control nodes 54 may proxy traffic on behalf of servers 26. These proxy requests may be received over XMPP. Further, control nodes 54 exchange routes with SDN gateway 8 via BGP, and exchange the configuration state of SDN controller 32 with service nodes 21 via Netconf.)([Col. 14 Lines 10-68]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 10, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 9,
Borgione teaches wherein:
the route is a first route to a network (Fig. 5 routes R1, R2, R3);
a second router is configured to provide a second route to the network (Fig. 5 routes R1, R2, R3); and
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
the network management system is configured:
to determine that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold ([Col. 15 Lines 10-55] Fig. 4, compute node 62X has stopped operating and stopped responding to control node 54A. Compute node 62X may have gone down/offline due to a hardware or software failure, for example. XMPP process 70A detects that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down when XMPP process 70A does not receive XMPP communications from compute node 62X as expected. In response to detecting that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down, XMPP process 70A may mark as stale any routes in routing information 65 that XMPP process 70A learned from compute node 62X, without deleting the routes or withdrawing the routes from BGP peers (e.g., control nodes 54 or gateway nodes 72). XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods. In this manner, control node 54A allows compute node 62A to continue to forward data traffic to one of the virtual interfaces while the messaging protocol session 64B with the compute node 62X is closed and the routes received from compute node 62X are marked as stale. Control node 54 also allows BGP peers to continue to forward data traffic based on the routes.); and
in response to determining that the second route does not meet a reliability threshold, to send the first petition ([Col. 15 Lines 10-55] Fig. 4, compute node 62X has stopped operating and stopped responding to control node 54A. Compute node 62X may have gone down/offline due to a hardware or software failure, for example. XMPP process 70A detects that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down when XMPP process 70A does not receive XMPP communications from compute node 62X as expected. In response to detecting that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down, XMPP process 70A may mark as stale any routes in routing information 65 that XMPP process 70A learned from compute node 62X, without deleting the routes or withdrawing the routes from BGP peers (e.g., control nodes 54 or gateway nodes 72). XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods. In this manner, control node 54A allows compute node 62A to continue to forward data traffic to one of the virtual interfaces while the messaging protocol session 64B with the compute node 62X is closed and the routes received from compute node 62X are marked as stale. Control node 54 also allows BGP peers to continue to forward data traffic based on the routes.).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 11, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 8,
Borgione wherein the determining that the route is to be cloaked comprises receiving an instruction to cloak the route ([0031-0033] Fig. 3, In Step 300, the network device receives instructions to withdraw a route or multiple routes from the set of routes programmed into the hardware of the forwarding information base (FIB). ).
Regarding claim 13, Borgione teaches a system, comprising:
a first router ([0021] the computing devices (102A-102F), housed in racks (104A-104C), may be servers. A server may include a processor, memory, and one or more physical network interfaces)(Fig. 5),
the first router being configured (Fig. 2, network device)(Fig. 5)::
to receive a first message, indicating that a second router is withdrawing a first route, to a first resource ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302);
to store the first route as a candidate for a petition to resume supporting the first route ([0026-0027] Routing information base RIB)([0025] The forwarding information base (FIB) (206) is a hardware-implemented database containing the route entries to be used by the network device for making routing decisions);
to determine that a set time has elapsed ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302)([0031-0045] Fig. 4, timer expired step 406);
to delete the first route from a list of candidates for petitions ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302)([0031-0045] Fig. 4, withdraw route from the table step 408);
to receive a second message, indicating that a third router is withdrawing a second route, the second route being a route to a second resource ([0031-0045] Fig. 3, Fig. 4, step 300, step 302)([0031-0045] Fig. 4, withdraw route from the table step 408)(Fig. 5 different routes R1, R2, R3, different network devices to communicate withdraw with different network devices);
Borgione does not teach but Suryanarayana teaches
to determine that it is no longer able to reach the second resource ([Col. 15 Lines 10-55] Fig. 4, compute node 62X has stopped operating and stopped responding to control node 54A. Compute node 62X may have gone down/offline due to a hardware or software failure, for example. XMPP process 70A detects that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down when XMPP process 70A does not receive XMPP communications from compute node 62X as expected. In response to detecting that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down, XMPP process 70A may mark as stale any routes in routing information 65 that XMPP process 70A learned from compute node 62X, without deleting the routes or withdrawing the routes from BGP peers (e.g., control nodes 54 or gateway nodes 72). XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods. In this manner, control node 54A allows compute node 62A to continue to forward data traffic to one of the virtual interfaces while the messaging protocol session 64B with the compute node 62X is closed and the routes received from compute node 62X are marked as stale. Control node 54 also allows BGP peers to continue to forward data traffic based on the routes.); and
to send, to the third router, a petition to resume supporting the second route ([Col. 15 Lines 10-55] Fig. 4, compute node 62X has stopped operating and stopped responding to control node 54A. Compute node 62X may have gone down/offline due to a hardware or software failure, for example. XMPP process 70A detects that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down when XMPP process 70A does not receive XMPP communications from compute node 62X as expected. In response to detecting that the XMPP session 64B between control node 54A and compute node 62X has gone down, XMPP process 70A may mark as stale any routes in routing information 65 that XMPP process 70A learned from compute node 62X, without deleting the routes or withdrawing the routes from BGP peers (e.g., control nodes 54 or gateway nodes 72). XMPP process 70A sets a corresponding one of timers 68 that corresponds to the session. Timers 68 run for configurable time periods. In this manner, control node 54A allows compute node 62A to continue to forward data traffic to one of the virtual interfaces while the messaging protocol session 64B with the compute node 62X is closed and the routes received from compute node 62X are marked as stale. Control node 54 also allows BGP peers to continue to forward data traffic based on the routes.).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione in view of Suryanarayana in order to set up timer before deleting or advertising a route when the session is closed or reopen between network nodes because the overall impact to the network of the loss of messaging protocol session may be decreased while the session comes back up and routes are relearned (Suryanarayana, [Col. 2 Lines 20-40]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Borgione et al. (“Borgione”, US 20160308767 A1) hereinafter Borgione, and Suryanarayana et al. (“Suryanarayana”, US 10200274 B1) hereinafter Suryanarayana, in view of Previdi et al. (“Previdi”, US 20060209716 A1) hereinafter Previdi.
Regarding claim 6, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 5,
Borgione and Suryanarayana do not explicitly teach, but Previdi teaches
wherein the receiving of the first petition comprises receiving the first petition with authentication ([0041-0045] Fig. 3, BGP header, an exemplary BGP advertisement 300 that may be transmitted by BGP enabled routers 200. Illustratively, the BGP advertisement 300 is a BGP update message. The packet includes a BGP header 310, unfeasible routes length field 320, withdrawn routes field 330, total path attribute length field 340, path attributes field 350, and network layer reachability information (NLRI) field 360. The BGP header 310 contains the type of BGP message (e.g., an update message), the overall length of the message, and other known information, such as predictable authentication data).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione and Suryanarayana in view of Previdi in order to include authenticate data in the BGP updating message because it would improve routing scalabilityby using BGP that performs routing between domains (ASes) by exchanging routing and reachability information among neighboring interdomain routers of the systems. (Previdi, [0006-0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Borgione and Suryanarayana teach the system of claim 5,
Borgione and Suryanarayana do not explicitly teach, but Previdi teaches
wherein the receiving of the first petition comprises receiving the petition as a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) update message with a “community” attribute set to signal an authenticated petition ([0041-0045] Fig. 3, BGP header, an exemplary BGP advertisement 300 that may be transmitted by BGP enabled routers 200. Illustratively, the BGP advertisement 300 is a BGP update message. The packet includes a BGP header 310, unfeasible routes length field 320, withdrawn routes field 330, total path attribute length field 340, path attributes field 350, and network layer reachability information (NLRI) field 360. The BGP header 310 contains the type of BGP message (e.g., an update message), the overall length of the message, and other known information, such as predictable authentication data).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Borgione and Suryanarayana in view of Previdi in order to include authenticate data in the BGP updating message because it would improve routing scalabilityby using BGP that performs routing between domains (ASes) by exchanging routing and reachability information among neighboring interdomain routers of the systems. (Previdi, [0006-0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the double patenting rejection set forth in this office action.
The reason for the allowable subject matter in claim 12.
The closed prior arts (“Borgione”, US 20160308767 A1) and (“Suryanarayana”, US 10200274 B1) fairly fail to teach or suggest the route is a first route to a network; and the network management system is configured: to determine that the route is no longer needed; to determine that a size of the network exceeds a threshold; and in response to determining that the network size exceeds a threshold, to instruct the first router to cloak the route.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights