DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s filing a response, dated 03/31/2025.
The instant application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 07/14/2021. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,103,978 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre‐AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three‐prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre‐AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non‐structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre‐AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre‐AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4, 7-10, 12, 14 – 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 4, 7-10, 12, 14 – 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkataswami et al., U.S. Patent No. 8599865, hereinafter “Venkataswami”, in view of Buyukkoe et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0104297.
Claim 1:
A service processing method comprising: acquiring a label set corresponding to a service flow, wherein the label set comprises at least three labels arranged according to a sequence
Venkataswami teaches a provisioning method (service processing method) in a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) system comprising acquiring a header to be used in a sub‐flow. See Fig. 5, which is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The acquired header comprises a label set corresponding to the “Flow Description”, where the
label set comprises a plurality of labels, such as L1 (inner label) and L2 arranged according to a numerical integer sequence, (e.g., 12:4‐6 and 13:46‐49). It is seen that Venkataswami teaches more than one label. Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because having multiple or even more than 3 labels allows the system to send the packet to more than two paths if needed. Furthermore, having more of the same structure or item that performs the same or similar function is mere duplication of parts, MPEP 2144.04 “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”. Having more than 2 labels would yield the predictable result of sending information similar to having 2 labels or 5.
sending the label set corresponding to the service flow to a service router to enable the service router to forward the service flow according to the label set, wherein each label of the at least three of labels is a digit and corresponds to a respective service processing device, and packets of the service flow are routed to each of the at least three service processing devices identified by the at least three labels in the label set according to the sequence, the at least three labels identify at least three different service processing steps, and each service processing device performs a different service processing step of the at least three different service processing steps. plurality of
The label set is sent to service router (Mobile Access Gateway) (hereinafter “MAG) 20 to enable MAG 20 (service router) to forward the service flow according to the label set. 12:9‐27. The label is an integer (digit) (12: 4‐6) corresponding to a device (e.g., Inner Label 2 corresponds to devices MAG 20 and LMA 24) (12:21‐22), which are devices providing services. Venkataswami is wholly directed to provisioning and routing of packets according to various
labels, i.e., MPLS as discussed above and also thus including the routing of TE tunnels (MPLS‐TE) as is typical for MPLS. See, e.g., 3:15‐26, 4:33‐67. Thus, Venkataswami clearly teaches that the service flow packets are routed among devices identified by the labels (sequence of digits) in a label set according to sequence. Also note that the claim is worded broadly in that “service processing devices” need not be another router, but can encompass any device connected to the I/O routing port of the MPLS router. It is seen that Venkataswami teaches more than one label. Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because similar reasons stated above.
Independent claim 7 differs substantively from independent claim 7 in that claim 7 recites receiving and processing packets according to a service flow, which Venkataswami describes in terms of the flow defined routing of packets between, such as defined by the MAG packet forwarding tables. 12:45‐64. Venkataswami teaches more than one label. Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because similar reasons stated above.
Independent claims 14 and 18 differs substantively from independent claims 1 and 7
respectively in that claims 1 and 14 recites a “service processing device” comprising a processor that executes instructions from a non‐transitory computer‐readable medium performing the functions discussed in the claims 1 and 7 rejections respectively. Processor reads on MAG 20 processor 32a (Fig. 1). Venkataswami teaches more than one label. Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because similar reasons stated above.
Independent claim 22 differs substantively from independent claim 18 in that claim 22 recites a “controller” and that the second service processing device deletes a label corresponding to the said device from the label set in the packet. The “controller” reads on the MAG 20 processor 32a discussed in the claim 14 rejection. Deleting pre‐existing labels reads on switchover from one tunnel to another, which requires deregistration of the existing workflow (and corresponding labels) according to the old tunnel and registration of a new workflow corresponding to the new tunnel. 13:2‐8. Venkataswami teaches more than one label. Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because similar reasons stated above.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 15, the label set is acquired from Authorization,
Authentication and Accounting (“AAA”) server corresponding to the address of the Local Mobility Anchor (“LMA”) 24. 12:13‐16.
Regarding dependent claim 3, existing or default label sets are preset in the controller of MAG 20. 13:1‐4.
Regarding dependent claim 4, see the claim 1 rejection for further details.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the label set processing defines input and output ports, such as 2.2.2.2 and 3.3.3.3. 12:9‐36.
Regarding dependent claim 9 and 10, see Fig. 5 and col. 12, ll. 18‐60 regarding routing between IP addresses in the centralized routing table of MAG 20.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the end devices (e.g., LMA 24) also contain routing tables, thus the routing is also distributed. 12:37‐62.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the “voice call guarantee of 64 kbps” is a service requirement. 12:13‐16.
Regarding dependent claim 19, see the claims 1 and 12 rejections regarding the generation of a routing table.
Regarding dependent claim 21, see the claims 8 and 22 rejections regarding the labels are handled.
Regarding dependent claim 23, see the claim 1 rejection regarding adding a new label and claim 8 regarding how the labels correspond to ports.
Rejections Based on OpenFlow
Claims 1 – 4, 7-10, 12, 14 – 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OpenFlow Switch Specification, Version 1.1.10 Implemented (Wire Protocol 0x02), February 28, 2011, 56 pages (as cited by the Patent Owner), hereinafter “OpenFlow”, in view of Buyukkoe et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0104297.
Claim 1:
A service processing method comprising: acquiring a label set corresponding to a service flow, wherein the label set comprises at least three labels arranged according to a sequence
OpenFlow is directed to a service processing method for using an OpenFlow controller to
provision an OpenFlow switch with a service flow table. See OpenFlow, Fig. 1, p. 3, which is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
288
217
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The “flow tables of an OpenFlow switch are sequentially numbered, starting at 0.” P. 6. See
also Fig. 2, p. 6, which is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
325
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
OpenFlow teaches popping/pushing (deleting or acquiring) multiple MPLS labels (label set)
during the switch provisioning that correspond to flow entries (service flows). P. 10 (Table 4, Flow Entries including MPLS labels), 11, 16, 28.
Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because having multiple or even more than 3 labels allows the system to send the packet to more than two paths if needed. Furthermore, having more of the same structure or item that performs the same or similar function is mere duplication of parts, MPEP 2144.04 “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).”. Having more than 2 labels would yield the predictable result of sending information similar to having 2 labels or 5.
sending the label set corresponding to the service flow to a service router to enable the service router to forward the service flow according to the label set, wherein each label of the at least three of labels is a digit and corresponds to a respective service processing device, and packets of the service flow are routed to each of the at least three service processing devices identified by the at least three labels in the label set according to the sequence, the at least three labels identify at least three different service processing steps, and each service processing device performs a different service processing step of the at least three different service processing steps. plurality of
As discussed above, OpenFlow teaches provisioning service flows (including MPLS label sets) to an OpenFlow router from an OpenFlow controller. Each MPLS label is a digit, specifically a 32 bit integer (uint32_t mpls label). P. 33. The MPLS label corresponds to a device via field matching against flows (e.g., source address, destination address). P. 28 (Flow Match Structures). The flows also may forward to a physical port associated with a device. P. 4.
OpenFlow is wholly directed to provisioning and routing of packets according to various labels as discussed above. During processing some actions, such as a “push” are performed on the incoming label. A label push is when a new label is pushed onto to the top of an existing label resulting in a new, hierarchical layer. Thus, the outgoing MPLS label is different resulting in routing based on the plurality of labels in the label set. Other typical MPLS actions are “pop” (removing the top layer) and “swap” exchanging labels. OpenFlow, 12. Push, pop and swaps result in new outgoing labels that relate to incoming labels and thus routing based on those labels. Thus, OpenFlow clearly teaches that the service flow packets are routed among devices identified by the labels (sequence of digits) in a label set according to sequence. Also note that the claim is worded broadly in that “devices” need not be another router, but can encompass any device connected to the I/O routing port of the MPLS router.
Buyukkoe teaches the use of three or more labels, (e.g., ¶¶ 0173 – 0177 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Buyukkoe with Venkataswami because similar reasons stated above.
Independent claim 7 differs substantively from independent claim 7 in that claim 7 recites receiving and processing packets according to a service flow, which OpenFlow describes in Fig. 2 (reproduced above).
Independent claims 14 and 18 differs substantively from independent claims 1 and 7 respectively in that claims 1 and 14 recites a “service processing device” comprising a processor that executes instructions from a non‐transitory computer‐readable medium performing the functions discussed in the claims 1 and 7 rejections respectively. Processor reads on the OpenFlow switch, which inherently requires a processor to execute the service flows. See Fig. 1 (reproduced above).
Independent claim 22 differs substantively from independent claim 18 in that claim 22 recites a “controller” and that the second service processing device deletes a label corresponding to the said device from the label set in the packet. The “controller” reads on the controller of Fig. 1 (reproduced above). OpenFlow teaches flow modification including label deletion by command or timeout. pp. 20‐22 (Flow Table Modification). OpenFlow switches are designed to work in groups (p. 13) and thus include a second OpenFlow switch (second service processing device) that will delete labels according to provisioning commands or flow timeouts (pp. 20‐22).
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 15, the controller acts as a authenticating server. p. 19, section 5.4.
Regarding dependent claim 3, existing or default label sets can be present (default). P. 6, 12, 13
(default rules), 16 (default fields), 18 (default startup profile).
Regarding dependent claim 4, see the claim 1 rejection for further details.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the label set processing defines input and output ports, see Fig. 2 (reproduced above), ingress and output ports.
Regarding dependent claim 9 and 10, see the flow structures regarding routing between IP addresses. pp. 28, 29.
Regarding dependent claim 12, each of the plurality of OpenFlow switches contain routing tables, thus the routing is also distributed. See also the claim 22 rejection above.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the Quality‐of‐Service (“QoS”) support is for a service
requirement. p. 27.
Regarding dependent claim 19, see the claims 1 and 12 rejections regarding the generation of a routing table.
Regarding dependent claim 21, see the claims 8 and 22 rejections regarding the labels are handled.
Regarding dependent claim 23, see the claim 1 rejection regarding adding a new label and claim 8 regarding how the labels correspond to ports.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights