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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive /moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. These responses apply to all independent and dependent claims.
Main argument: Amended claim 1 is patentable because the cited references do not teach or suggest "the possible split threshold is dynamically set on a per path basis for a plurality of paths including the reference path based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path." The Office Action cites Hoy as read on the "possible split threshold" and also to read on "historical traffic profile" in claim 15.
Response, Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Due to the amendment made on the amended claim 1, the Office no longer relies on Hoy and instead introduces Ericson et al. (US 2025/0071654). Teachings from Fig. 5-6, 8-13 and ¶0054, ¶0089, ¶0090 and ¶0097 in Ericson show that making the hysteresis configurable by the network, in combination with configurable data level thresholds is a dynamic process that allows the network to optimize performance based on real-time measurements. The network tailors path selection based on current radio conditions and load, which is not a static configuration. Also, a person skilled in the art would recognize that hysteresis is fundamentally defined as the dependence of a system’s state on its history, which would include a historical traffic profile. Specifically, Figs. 10-13 show different scenarios of what happens when data is smaller or larger than the split threshold value(s) and adjusts accordingly.
Second argument: In addition, the cited references do not teach or suggest "based on determining the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, performing an analysis based on state information received from multiple routers in the network to determine a benefit to redirecting the at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path."
Response, Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Giraldo’s traffic steering controller collecting network metrics related to routers to optimize the performance of access networks in combination with Fiaschi, which establishes the claimed device collecting node data, including a source node and a destination node, as well as path data, in further combination with Ericson’s configurable split threshold(s) teach or suggest "based on determining the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, performing an analysis based on state information received from multiple routers in the network to determine a benefit to redirecting the at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path."
Third argument: Amended claim 15 is patentable because the cited references do not teach or suggest "the possible split threshold is determined on a per path basis for a plurality of paths including the reference path based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path." The Office Action cites Hoy to read on the "possible split threshold" and "historical traffic profile."
Response, Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Due to the amendment(s) made on amended claim 15, the Office no longer relies on Hoy and instead introduces Ericson et al. (US 2025/0071654). Teachings from Fig. 5-6, 8-13 and ¶0054, ¶0089, ¶0090 and ¶0097 in Ericson show that making the hysteresis configurable by the network, in combination with configurable data level thresholds is a dynamic process that allows the network to optimize performance based on real-time measurements. The network tailors path selection based on current radio conditions and load, which is not a static configuration. Also, a person skilled in the art would recognize that hysteresis is fundamentally defined as the dependence of a system’s state on its history, which would include a historical traffic profile. Specifically, Figs. 10-13 show different scenarios of what happens when data is smaller or larger than the split threshold value(s) and adjusts accordingly.
Fourth argument: Amended claim 19 is patentable because the cited references do not teach or suggest "the possible split threshold is determined on a per path basis for a plurality of paths and is dynamically adjusted for the first path based on a condition of the network at different points in time and on a historical traffic profile of the first path."
Response, Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Due to the amendment(s) made on amended claim 19, the Office no longer relies on Hoy and instead introduces Ericson et al. (US 2025/0071654). Teachings from Fig. 5-6, 8-13 and ¶0054, ¶0089, ¶0090 and ¶0097 in Ericson show that making the hysteresis configurable by the network, in combination with configurable data level thresholds is a dynamic process that allows the network to optimize performance based on real-time measurements. The network tailors path selection based on current radio conditions and load, which is not a static configuration. Also, a person skilled in the art would recognize that hysteresis is fundamentally defined as the dependence of a system’s state on its history, which would include a historical traffic profile. Specifically, Figs. 10-13 show different scenarios of what happens when data is smaller or larger than the split threshold value(s) and adjusts accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi et al. (US 2023/0216787), Fiaschi hereinafter, in view of Ericson et al. (US 2025/0071654), Ericson hereinafter, and further in view of Giraldo Rodriguez et al. (US 2018/0152861), Giraldo hereinafter.
Re. Claim 1, Fiaschi teaches a device comprising: a processing system including a processor; and (Fig. 2, 7);
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: (Fig. 2, 4, 7 & ¶0009 - The network controller comprises processing circuitry and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the network controller to… ¶0131 - FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram of a network management node 700 according to embodiments of the disclosure. The network management node 700 may be operable as the management node 206 shown in FIG. 2 or the management node 300 shown in FIGS. 3a or 3b, for example);
obtaining node data identifying a source node of a network and a destination node of the network, (Fig. 2 & ¶0034 - In step 208, the management node 206 obtains, from the client network 202, a plurality of demands for connectivity between nodes of the client network 202 or between attachment points of the transport network. Thus each connectivity demand may comprise identities of a first node (e.g. a source or ingress node) and a second node (e.g., a destination or egress node), with traffic to be routed between those nodes via the transport network 204)
wherein the network comprises the source node, the destination node, and a plurality of other nodes; (¶0032 - In step 210, the management node 206 obtains topology information for the transport network 204. For example, the topology information may comprise one or more of: identities of a plurality of nodes in the network…);
obtaining reference path data identifying a reference path from the source node to the destination node; (¶0008 - … calculating, for each demand, one or more paths from the client node, via an ingress node, to the egress node through the mobile transport network… ¶0034 - Thus each connectivity demand may comprise identities of a first node (e.g. a source or ingress node) and a second node (e.g., a destination or egress node), with traffic to be routed between those nodes via the transport network 204);
obtaining alternate path data identifying a plurality of alternate paths from the source node to the destination node, wherein each of the plurality of alternate paths is different from the reference path; (Fig. 4 & ¶0063 - In step 400, the management node obtains topology information for telecommunications network … the topology information may comprise one or more of: an indication of the links between respective pairs of the plurality of nodes (e.g., an indication as to which node identities are connected to which other node identities)… The management node may obtain such information through communications with the network itself (e.g. via one or more control interfaces between the management node and the network), or through receipt of configuration information from a designer or operator of the network. ¶0073 - In step 404, the management node generates, for each connectivity demand, a list of possible paths through the telecommunications network from the first node to the second node…);
Yet Fiaschi does not explicitly teach setting for the reference path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which triggers a re-direction of traffic from the reference path, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the reference path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, wherein the possible split threshold is dynamically set on a per path basis for a plurality of paths including the reference path based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path; determining whether a current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, resulting in a first determination; responsive to the first determination being that the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, obtaining, subsequent to the setting for the reference path of the possible split threshold, current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths, wherein the current alternate path data comprises for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth availability; based on the obtaining of the current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths, determining whether a particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path, resulting in a second determination, wherein the second determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth availability of each of the plurality of alternate paths; based on determining the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, performing an analysis based on state information received from multiple routers in the network to determine a benefit to redirecting the at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path; and responsive to the analysis determining the benefit and to the second determination being that the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support the carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path, re-directing a portion of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternative paths.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches setting for the reference path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which triggers a re-direction of traffic from the reference path, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the reference path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, (Fig. 5-6, 8-13 (Please see Fig. 10) & ¶0142 - In block 1003, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, receives a configuration having a first data split threshold value and a second data split threshold value for modifying a data transmission path. In the method of FIG. 10, the second split data threshold value is greater than the first data split threshold value. ¶0054 - Advantages that may be achieved is: 1) by configuring the UE with multiple data buffer thresholds, it will be possible to configure the UE to only use a subset of the bandwidth available);
wherein the possible split threshold is dynamically set on a per path basis for a plurality of paths including the reference path based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path; (¶0054 - …and 2) by proper configuration of the thresholds, that can be applied by the network based on knowledge of the UE or radio conditions or network load e.g. it is possible to activate all carriers even at low buffer levels or load for some UEs. ¶0089 - In one embodiment, the UE is configured with a second threshold which acts as a hysteresis; … The hysteresis value or second threshold can be configured by the network in a signaling message from network to UE or it can be specified in the standard. ¶0090 - Also, when the network configures the UL data level thresholds indicates which paths are the primary path, secondary path and/or tertiary paths etc. The network may also configure a hysteresis which allows even further fine tuning of connections. ¶0097 - By making the hysteresis configurable by the network it is possible for the network to tune and optimize the performance based on performance measurements done in the network);
determining whether a current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, resulting in a first determination; (Fig. 10 & ¶0146 - In block 1009, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, determines whether the data buffer is greater than the second data split threshold value);
responsive to the first determination being that the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, obtaining, subsequent to the setting for the reference path of the possible split threshold, current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths, wherein the current alternate path data comprises for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth availability; (¶0141 - Turning to FIG. 10, in block 1001, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, connects to three different cell groups where the UE is configured to use a primary transmission path in a first cell group of the three different cell groups, a secondary transmission path in a second cell group of the three different cell groups, and a tertiary transmission path in a third cell group of the three different cell groups. ¶0142 - In block 1003, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, receives a configuration having a first data split threshold value and a second data split threshold value for modifying a data transmission path. ¶0046 - In uplink, if the UE only has a small amount of data to transmit, it will not be beneficial from throughput perspective to activate both links to access the full bandwidth as one of the paths is fully capable of providing the required resources. Therefore, the UE can be configured with a threshold ul-SplitDataThreshold to determine when to use one or both paths in uplink);
based on the obtaining of the current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths, determining whether a particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path, resulting in a second determination, wherein the second determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth availability of each of the plurality of alternate paths; (¶0045 - In dual connectivity, a UE can be configured with a split bearer to either increase the available bandwidth by utilizing radio resources from multiple base stations or provide reliability through redundancy by transmitting duplicate data packets via both paths. ¶0147 - Responsive to the data buffer being larger than the first data split threshold value and smaller than the second data split threshold, in block 1011, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, transmits the data via only the primary transmission path and the secondary transmission path. ¶0151 - In some embodiments, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, can periodically check the UL data buffer to determine which of the paths to transmit data upon based on comparing the UL data buffer to the first data split threshold value and the second data split threshold. For example, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, can check the UL data buffer after each transmission to compare the UL data buffer level to the first data split threshold value and the second data split threshold value);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teaching of Fiaschi. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson do not explicitly teach based on determining the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, performing an analysis based on state information received from multiple routers in the network to determine a benefit to redirecting the at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path; and responsive to the analysis determining the benefit and to the second determination being that the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support the carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path, re-directing a portion of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternative paths.
However, in the analogous art, Giraldo explicitly teaches based on determining the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold, performing an analysis based on state information received from multiple routers in the network to determine a benefit to redirecting the at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path; and (Fig. 2 & ¶0021 - Specifically, traffic steering controller 110 may collect network metrics from the plurality of network devices (routers…)… ¶0028 - For example network metrics 201, 202 may include metrics related to routers… of access networks 240, 250. Network metrics 201, 202 may be sent periodically as the conditions of the networks change over time. ¶0031 - Traffic steering controller 260, based at least in part of the user profile, network metrics and/or terminal metrics may create traffic steering rules 207 in order to optimize the performance of access networks 240, 250. Please also see ¶0067);
responsive to the analysis determining the benefit and to the second determination being that the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support the carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path, re-directing a portion of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternative paths (Fig. 5, 7 & ¶0086 - Next, the traffic steering controller recalculates 716 optimal paths to and from the terminals with the topology manager. Indeed the new metrics may imply that a previously optimal path is no longer optimal… Therefore, the optimal paths may be recalculated 716, and the result updated 717 in the topology manager. ¶0087 - With the new optimal paths the traffic steering controller may calculate 718, via the forwarding rules manager, a set of forwarding rules for… a plurality of network devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Giraldo to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson. The motivation would be because there is a need for proactive congestion control consisting of two complementary steps: on the one hand, it should provide the means to predict the future state of the network in order to anticipate potential problems; on the other hand, and depending on the prediction, it should allow to change the network configuration in a convenient way (¶0004, Giraldo).
Re. Claim 6, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Fiaschi further teaches the device comprises a centralized system; (Fig. 2-3 & ¶0031 - The management node 206 may be a software defined networking (SDN) controller or SDN function, for example. Please also see ¶0029);
the centralized system receives first data indicative of the current traffic flow on the reference path; (Fig. 2 & ¶0009 - obtain traffic information for a plurality of demands for connectivity from client nodes through the mobile transport network, the traffic information for each demand identifying a client node for the demand, an egress node for the demand and an amount of traffic for the demand; ¶0034 - In step 208, the management node 206 obtains, from the client network 202, a plurality of demands for connectivity between nodes of the client network 202 or between attachment points of the transport network. Thus, each connectivity demand may comprise identities of a first node (e.g. a source or ingress node) and a second node (e.g., a destination or egress node), with traffic to be routed between those nodes via the transport network 204);
the first data is received from the source node, the destination node, or any combination thereof; and (¶0008 - obtaining traffic information for a plurality of demands for connectivity from client nodes through the mobile transport network);
the centralized system receives a respective part of the current alternate path data from the source node, the destination node, one or more of the plurality of other nodes, or any combination thereof (¶0009 - the network controller to: obtain traffic information for a plurality of demands for connectivity from client nodes through the mobile transport network … calculate, for each demand, one or more paths from the client node, via an ingress node, to the egress node through the mobile transport network; map each path for a demand to a source port in the ingress node for the demand… Please also see ¶0032).
Re. Claim 12, Fiaschi, Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi does not explicitly teach the determining whether the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold comprises determining whether the current traffic flow on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches the determining whether the current traffic flow on the reference path meets the possible split threshold comprises determining whether the current traffic flow on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold (Fig. 10 & ¶0146 - In block 1009, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, determines whether the data buffer is greater than the second data split threshold value);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teachings of Fiaschi and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo, and further in view of Hoy et al. (US 2017/0171158), Hoy hereinafter.
Re. Claim 7, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the obtaining the current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths is performed in real-time.
However, in the analogous art, Hoy explicitly teaches the obtaining the current alternate path data for each of the plurality of alternate paths is performed in real-time (¶0071 - The present invention includes embodiments that dynamically deploy and reconfigure highly-tuned VPNs based on application requirements from multiple applications and provide optimal topologies… ¶0079 - The VPN Manager can optimize VPN tunnel infrastructure by merging or splitting VPN tunnels dynamically in response to new requests, changes in the application lifecycle, changes in traffic or network reconfiguration or to dynamically configure VPN tunnel specifications for existing VPN tunnels. ¶0177 - By continuously monitoring the VPN tunnel requirements provided by … the set of applications, embodiments of the invention provide for dynamic VPN tunnel reconfiguration. ¶0180 - The VPN tunnels can be responsively changed to provide for expansion or restriction of the communication channel based on the application lifecycle, as well as real-time changing of the allowed protocols in a VPN tunnel based on application-driven commands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Hoy to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the present invention provides a means to provide more highly tuned VPNs based on application requirements and topology requirements (¶0023, Hoy).
Claims 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo, and further in view of Timmons et al. (US 2019/0253341), Timmons hereinafter.
Re. Claim 2, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the source node comprises a first router; the destination node comprises a second router; and each of the plurality of other nodes comprises a respective router.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the source node comprises a first router; the destination node comprises a second router; and each of the plurality of other nodes comprises a respective router (Fig. 4, 6, 8, 12-13 & ¶0008 - an apparatus routes packets from a source to a destination across an IP network. Like the above noted IP network, this IP network has a plurality of nodes and a plurality of network segments interconnecting the plurality of nodes. The plurality of nodes includes the source and the destination, and the source and destination are configured to use a given service. ¶0028 - Nodes can include computing devices (sometimes referred to as hosts) and routers. Please also see ¶0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Re. Claim 3, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the network comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) network; the source node is connected by a respective IP link to either the destination node or to one of the plurality of other nodes; the destination node is connected by a respective IP link to either the source node or to one of the plurality of other nodes; and each of the plurality of other nodes is connected by a respective IP link to one of the plurality of other nodes, to the source node, or to the destination node.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the network comprises an Internet Protocol (IP) network; the source node is connected by a respective IP link to either the destination node or to one of the plurality of other nodes; the destination node is connected by a respective IP link to either the source node or to one of the plurality of other nodes; and each of the plurality of other nodes is connected by a respective IP link to one of the plurality of other nodes, to the source node, or to the destination node (Fig. 4, 6, 8, 12-13 & ¶0008 - an apparatus routes packets from a source to a destination across an IP network. Like the above noted IP network, this IP network has a plurality of nodes and a plurality of network segments interconnecting the plurality of nodes. The plurality of nodes includes the source and the destination, and the source and destination are configured to use a given service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Re. Claim 4, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the reference path is an Internet Protocol (IP) link between the source node and the destination node.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the reference path is an Internet Protocol (IP) link between the source node and the destination node (Fig. 4, 6 8 & ¶0026 - a source device (or other network device or node cooperating with the source device, such as a router) more effectively forms a path across an IP network from the source device to an ultimate destination device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Re. Claim 5, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the reference path comprises: a first Internet Protocol (IP) link between the source node and at least one of the plurality of other nodes; and a second IP link between the at least one of the plurality of other nodes and the destination node.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the reference path comprises: a first Internet Protocol (IP) link between the source node and at least one of the plurality of other nodes; and a second IP link between the at least one of the plurality of other nodes and the destination node (Fig. 4, 6 8 & ¶0008 - Like the above noted IP network, this IP network has a plurality of nodes and a plurality of network segments interconnecting the plurality of nodes. The plurality of nodes includes the source and the destination, and the source and destination are configured to use a given service. ¶0026 - a source device (or other network device or node cooperating with the source device, such as a router) more effectively forms a path across an IP network from the source device to an ultimate destination device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Re. Claim 10, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Hoy and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the re-directing comprises sending an instruction to the source node, the destination node, one or more of the plurality of other nodes, or any combination thereof.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the re-directing comprises sending an instruction to the source node, the destination node, one or more of the plurality of other nodes, or any combination thereof (Fig. 4-6 & ¶0039 - As noted, when a router receives a packet via one interface from one network, the router uses its routing table to direct the packet to another network. Table 1 lists information typically found in a basic IP routing table. Please see Table 1. ¶0040 - The router uses routing protocols to exchange information with other routers and, thereby, dynamically learns about surrounding network or internet topology. For example, routers announce their presence in the network(s), more specifically, the range of IP addresses to which the routers can forward packets. Please also see ¶0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Hoy and Giraldo. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Re. Claim 11, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo and Timmons teach Claim 10.
Yet, Fiaschi does not explicitly teach the re-directing is performed in real-time.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches the re-directing is performed in real-time (Fig. 5-6, 8-13 (Please see Fig. 10) & ¶0097 - By making the hysteresis configurable by the network it is possible for the network to tune and optimize the performance based on performance measurements done in the network. ¶0145 - Responsive to the data buffer being smaller than the first data split threshold value, in block 1007, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, transmits the data via only the primary path. ¶0147 - Responsive to the data buffer being larger than the first data split threshold value and smaller than the second data split threshold, in block 1011, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, transmits the data via only the primary transmission path and the secondary transmission path. ¶0149 - Responsive to transmitting the data via the primary transmission path, the secondary transmission path, and the tertiary transmission path and the data buffer becoming smaller than the second data split threshold value and larger than the first data split threshold value, in block 1011, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, transmits the data via only the primary transmission path and the secondary transmission path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teachings of Fiaschi and Giraldo and Timmons. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo, and further in view of Lee (US 7,643,426 B1), Lee hereinafter.
Re. Claim 8, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the determining whether the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path comprises selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths from among two or more candidate alternate paths that can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow.
However, in the analogous art, Lee explicitly teaches the determining whether the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow on the reference path comprises selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths from among two or more candidate alternate paths that can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow (Fig. 3-7 & ¶26 - Several overlay paths may qualify as candidate overlay paths based on the comparison to the path switching threshold. ¶39 - FIG. 5A illustrates the DIN 410 sending a request for candidate overlay nodes and their respective paths to the neighboring DIN 411. The neighboring DIN 411 identifies, for example, the candidate overlay nodes 120h-j. ¶41 - In one embodiment, the overlay nodes 120i-k are selected as candidate overlay nodes if the candidate overlay paths 140i-k satisfy predetermined standards…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Lee to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because a fundamental challenge in effectively utilizing high-bandwidth network services is to provide these services and other data transmission without affecting the quality of the services (¶3, Lee).
Re. Claim 9, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo and Lee teach Claim 8.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths from among the two or more candidate alternate paths comprises selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths based upon the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths having a current latency that is less than each of the other candidate alternate paths.
However, in the analogous art, Lee explicitly teaches the selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths from among the two or more candidate alternate paths comprises selecting the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths based upon the particular one of the plurality of alternate paths having a current latency that is less than each of the other candidate alternate paths (Fig. 3-7 & ¶43 - According to another embodiment, both capacity and latency may be considered when selecting candidate overlay nodes and candidate overlay paths and/or when selecting a new overlay path from the candidate overlay paths … Then, the paths with minimum latency are selected as the new candidate overlay paths, and the new overlay path is selected from the new candidate overlay paths. The new candidate overlay path with the smallest latency may be selected as the new overlay path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Lee to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because a fundamental challenge in effectively utilizing high-bandwidth network services is to provide these services and other data transmission without affecting the quality of the services (¶3, Lee).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo, and further in view of Klinker et al. (US 2006/0182034), Klinker hereinafter.
Re. Claim 13, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo teach Claim 1.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach the node data is obtained from a first database; the reference path data is obtained from a second database; and the alternate path data is obtained from a third database.
However, in the analogous art, Klinker explicitly teaches the node data is obtained from a first database; the reference path data is obtained from a second database; and the alternate path data is obtained from a third database (Fig 2, 26 & ¶0105 - Additionally, flow control system 200 can include traffic repository 221 and flow policy repository 218. Exemplary traffic repository 221 and flow policy repository 218 are databases, such as a storage device, configured to store a large number of records in one or more data structures. Traffic repository 221 is designed to store and to communicate information related to traffic flow and route characteristics, and flow policy repository 218 is designed to store and to communicate policy information or rules to govern the performance and cost of each of the data traffic flows. Please also see ¶0296, Fig. 19A & ¶0223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Klinker to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because what is needed is a system and method of topology-based route control that can determine candidate paths for data traffic with minimal increases in data traffic volume, minimal effects on network security, and minimal maintenance and overhead costs. Moreover, what is needed is a system and method that can adapt data paths or paths in response to changes in a network topology (¶0033, Klinker).
Re. Claim 14, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo and Klinker teach Claim 13.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo do not explicitly teach each of the first database, the second database, and the third database is a same database.
However, in the analogous art, Klinker explicitly teaches each of the first database, the second database, and the third database is a same database (¶0260 - Such data structures can be combined… ¶0296 - FIG. 26 is an illustration of an exemplary data structure 2610, which can be implemented by a routing table, repository, database, or any of a number of other data structures. Data structure 2610 may be used to store data and other information for use by flow control system 200 (FIG. 2). Examiner interprets that a database is one form of the broader data structure 2610, thus, multiple underlying databases may collectively constitute the same logical database of the data structure);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Klinker to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Giraldo. The motivation would be because what is needed is a system and method of topology-based route control that can determine candidate paths for data traffic with minimal increases in data traffic volume, minimal effects on network security, and minimal maintenance and overhead costs. Moreover, what is needed is a system and method that can adapt data paths or paths in response to changes in a network topology (¶0033, Klinker).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson, and further in view of Mehrvar et al. (US 2003/0161303), Mehrvar hereinafter.
Re. Claim 15, Fiaschi teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: (Fig. 2, 4, 7 & ¶0009 - The network controller comprises processing circuitry and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the network controller to… ¶0131 - FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram of a network management node 700 according to embodiments of the disclosure. The network management node 700 may be operable as the management node 206 shown in FIG. 2 or the management node 300 shown in FIGS. 3a or 3b, for example);
obtaining network data indicative of a network comprising a source router, a destination router, and a plurality of other routers; (Fig. 2, 3B & ¶0034 - In step 208, the management node 206 obtains, from the client network 202, a plurality of demands for connectivity between nodes of the client network 202 or between attachment points of the transport network. Thus each connectivity demand may comprise identities of a first node (e.g. a source or ingress node) and a second node (e.g., a destination or egress node), with traffic to be routed between those nodes via the transport network 204. ¶0032 - In step 210, the management node 206 obtains topology information for the transport network 204. For example, the topology information may comprise one or more of: identities of a plurality of nodes in the network…);
obtaining reference path data indicative of a reference path from the source router to the destination router; (¶0008 - … calculating, for each demand, one or more paths from the client node, via an ingress node, to the egress node through the mobile transport network… ¶0034 - Thus each connectivity demand may comprise identities of a first node (e.g. a source or ingress node) and a second node (e.g., a destination or egress node), with traffic to be routed between those nodes via the transport network 204);
and wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternative path latency; (Fig. 2 & ¶0027 - The first of these characteristics restricts the number of paths which satisfy the latency constraint. If a path through the fronthaul network 108 does not satisfy the latency constraint, it cannot be considered as an option for providing the requested connectivity. ¶0032 - In step 210, the management node 206 obtains topology information for the transport network 204. For example, the topology information may comprise one or more of: an indication of the penalty associated with each link and/or node (e.g. latency)… Please also see ¶0035, ¶0067);
Yet, Fiaschi does not explicitly teach setting for the reference path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which can triggers a directing of traffic from the reference path to another path, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the reference path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, wherein the possible split threshold is determined on a per path basis for a plurality of paths including the reference path based based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path; obtaining, subsequent to the setting for the reference path of the possible split threshold, alternate path data indicative of a plurality of alternate paths from the source router to the destination router, wherein each of the plurality of alternate paths is different from the reference path, wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth capacity, determining whether a current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold, resulting in a first determination; responsive to the first determination being that the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold, determining whether two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path, resulting in a second determination, wherein the second determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth capacity for each alternate path; responsive to the second determination being that the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path, determining which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has a lower latency, resulting in a third determination, wherein the third determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path latency for each alternate path; and responsive to the third determination as to which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has the lower latency, directing the some of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternate paths that has the lower latency.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches setting for the reference path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which can triggers a directing of traffic from the reference path to another path, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the reference path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, (Fig. 5-6, 8-13 & ¶0142 - In block 1003, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, receives a configuration having a first data split threshold value and a second data split threshold value for modifying a data transmission path. In the method of FIG. 10, the second split data threshold value is greater than the first data split threshold value. ¶0054 - Advantages that may be achieved is: 1) by configuring the UE with multiple data buffer thresholds, it will be possible to configure the UE to only use a subset of the bandwidth available);
wherein the possible split threshold is determined based on a historical traffic profile of the reference path; (¶0054 - …and 2) by proper configuration of the thresholds, that can be applied by the network based on knowledge of the UE or radio conditions or network load e.g. it is possible to activate all carriers even at low buffer levels or load for some UEs. ¶0089 - In one embodiment, the UE is configured with a second threshold which acts as a hysteresis; … The hysteresis value or second threshold can be configured by the network in a signaling message from network to UE or it can be specified in the standard. ¶0090 - Also, when the network configures the UL data level thresholds indicates which paths are the primary path, secondary path and/or tertiary paths etc. The network may also configure a hysteresis which allows even further fine tuning of connections. ¶0097 - By making the hysteresis configurable by the network it is possible for the network to tune and optimize the performance based on performance measurements done in the network);
obtaining, subsequent to the setting for the reference path of the possible split threshold, alternate path data indicative of a plurality of alternate paths from the source router to the destination router, (¶0141 - Turning to FIG. 10, in block 1001, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, connects to three different cell groups where the UE is configured to use a primary transmission path in a first cell group of the three different cell groups, a secondary transmission path in a second cell group of the three different cell groups, and a tertiary transmission path in a third cell group of the three different cell groups. Fig. 14 & ¶0171 - Moreover, in different embodiments, the communication system 1400 may include any number of … network nodes … and/or any other components or systems that may facilitate or participate in the communication of data and/or signals whether via wired or wireless connections. ¶0178 - In some examples, the hub 1414 may be a controller, router, content source and analytics, or any of the other communication devices described herein regarding UEs);
wherein each of the plurality of alternate paths is different from the reference path, wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth capacity, (¶0054 - Advantages that may be achieved is: 1) by configuring the UE with multiple data buffer thresholds, it will be possible to configure the UE to only use a subset of the bandwidth available. ¶0141 - Turning to FIG. 10, in block 1001, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, connects to three different cell groups where the UE is configured to use a primary transmission path in a first cell group of the three different cell groups, a secondary transmission path in a second cell group of the three different cell groups, and a tertiary transmission path in a third cell group of the three different cell groups);
determining whether a current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold, resulting in a first determination; (Fig. 10 & ¶0146 - In block 1009, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, determines whether the data buffer is greater than the second data split threshold value);
responsive to the first determination being that the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path is at or above the possible split threshold, determining whether two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path, resulting in a second determination, wherein the second determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth capacity for each alternate path; (¶0142 - In block 1003, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, receives a configuration having a first data split threshold value and a second data split threshold value for modifying a data transmission path. ¶0046 - In uplink, if the UE only has a small amount of data to transmit, it will not be beneficial from throughput perspective to activate both links to access the full bandwidth as one of the paths is fully capable of providing the required resources. Therefore, the UE can be configured with a threshold ul-SplitDataThreshold to determine when to use one or both paths in uplink);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teaching of Fiaschi. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson do not explicitly teach responsive to the second determination being that the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path, determining which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has a lower latency, resulting in a third determination, wherein the third determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path latency for each alternate path; and responsive to the third determination as to which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has the lower latency, directing the some of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternate paths that has the lower latency.
However, in the analogous art, Mehrvar explicitly teaches responsive to the second determination being that the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path, determining which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has a lower latency, resulting in a third determination, wherein the third determination is based at least in part upon the current alternate path latency for each alternate path; (Fig. 2-4 & ¶0036 - As shown in FIG. 3, a latency classifier 30 … separates received traffic streams based on their respective latency requirements, and routes each stream to the ingress of the appropriate path 24. ¶0048 - … all of the traffic received by the input interface 4 is transported through two diverse paths 24 … However, more than two diverse paths may be used, if desired, to obtain a finer granularity of traffic separation);
and responsive to the third determination as to which of the two or more particular ones of the plurality of alternate paths that can support carrying of some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the reference path has the lower latency, directing the some of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternate paths that has the lower latency (Fig. 2-4 & ¶0032 - This arrangement enables traffic streams having similar latency requirements to traverse the system through a path optimized for those latency requirements, and independently of traffic streams having significantly different latency requirements. For example traffic with delay requirements of less than few 10's of micro-seconds can traverse the system in one path… As a result, traffic streams having markedly different latency requirements can be efficiently transported.... Please also see ¶0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Mehrvar to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson. The motivation would be because the invention provides a method and system for efficiently transporting traffic flows with differing latency requirements across a common network infrastructure (¶0009, Mehrvar).
Re. Claim 16, Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar teach Claim 15.
Fiaschi further teaches the operations further comprise: subsequent to the directing of the some of the current traffic flow from the reference path to the particular one of the alternate paths that has the lower latency, (Fig. 2 & ¶0040 - In step 212, the management node computes one or more paths satisfying the constraints for each connectivity demand, and determines weights according to which traffic for each connectivity demand should be allocated to each of the computed paths. Some embodiments of the disclosure provide for updating of the weights according to which traffic for each connectivity demand is allocated to each of the computed paths. ¶0073 - In step 404, the management node generates, for each connectivity demand, a list of possible paths through the telecommunications network from the first node to the second node which satisfy the constraint or constraints (e.g. a maximum latency). In one embodiment, the management node calculates all non-looping paths which satisfy the constraint or constraints);
Yet, Fiaschi does not explicitly teach re-directing a traffic flow back to the reference path.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches re-directing a traffic flow back to the reference path (Fig. 5-6, 8-13 & ¶0014 - Once the remaining data level drops below the uplink data split threshold, the UE reverts back to only using the primary path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teaching of Fiaschi. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Re. Claim 17, Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar teach Claim 16.
Fiaschi further teaches the re- directing is responsive to a current bandwidth availability of the reference path, a current latency of the reference path, or any combination thereof (Fig. 4 & ¶0027 - The first of these characteristics restricts the number of paths which satisfy the latency constraint. If a path through the fronthaul network 108 does not satisfy the latency constraint, it cannot be considered as an option for providing the requested connectivity. ¶0035 - Each connectivity demand may further specify one or more constraints to be satisfied by the routing through the transport network 204. For example, the connectivity demand may specify a maximum latency to be associated with the routing. In this case, the constraint is satisfied by a particular path through the network 204 if the total latency of the path is less than the maximum latency. Please also see ¶0073).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar, and further in view of Timmons.
Re. Claim 18, Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar teach Claim 15.
Yet, Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar do not explicitly teach the network is an Internet Protocol (IP) network; and the directing comprises sending instructions to the source router, the destination router, one or more of the plurality of other routers, or any combination thereof.
However, in the analogous art, Timmons explicitly teaches the network is an Internet Protocol (IP) network; and the directing comprises sending instructions to the source router, the destination router, one or more of the plurality of other routers, or any combination thereof (Fig. 4-6 & ¶0008 - Like the above noted IP network, this IP network has a plurality of nodes and a plurality of network segments interconnecting the plurality of nodes. The plurality of nodes includes the source and the destination, and the source and destination are configured to use a given service … ¶0039 - As noted, when a router receives a packet via one interface from one network, the router uses its routing table to direct the packet to another network. Table 1 lists information typically found in a basic IP routing table. Please see Table 1. ¶0040 - The router uses routing protocols to exchange information with other routers and, thereby, dynamically learns about surrounding network or internet topology. For example, routers announce their presence in the network(s), more specifically, the range of IP addresses to which the routers can forward packets. Please also see ¶0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Timmons to the teachings of Fiaschi and Ericson and Mehrvar. The motivation would be because the invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to establishing paths interconnecting network devices across a computer network (¶0001, Timmons).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons and Ericson, and further in view of Lee.
Re. Claim 19, Timmons teaches a method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, network data indicative of an Internet Protocol (IP) network comprising a source router, a destination router, and a plurality of other routers; (Fig. 4, 12-13 & ¶0008 - an apparatus routes packets from a source to a destination across an IP network. Like the above noted IP network, this IP network has a plurality of nodes and a plurality of network segments interconnecting the plurality of nodes. The plurality of nodes includes the source and the destination, and the source and destination are configured to use a given service);
obtaining, by the processing system, first path data indicative of a first path from the source router to the destination router; (¶0008 - The apparatus includes an input for receiving information relating to the given service, and a router operatively coupled with the input. The router is configured to form a path between the source and the destination);
Yet, Timmons does not explicitly teach setting, by the processing system, for the first path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which can triggers a re-directing of a portion of traffic from the first path to one or more other paths, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the first path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, wherein the possible split threshold is determined on a per path basis for a plurality of paths and is dynamically adjusted for the first path based on a condition of the network at different points in time and on a historical traffic profile of the first path; obtaining by the processing system, subsequent to the setting for the first path of the possible split threshold, alternate path data indicative of a plurality of alternate paths from the source router to the destination router, wherein each of the plurality of alternate paths is different from the first path, wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth capacity, and wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path latency; determining, by the processing system, whether a current traffic flow that is being carried via the first path is at or above the possible split threshold; responsive to determining that the current traffic flow is at or above the possible split threshold, determining by the processing system whether each of three or more candidate paths of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path, wherein the determining whether each of the three or more candidate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth capacity for each alternate path; responsive to determining that each of the three or more candidate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path, determining by the processing system a subset of the three or more candidate paths, wherein the subset comprises at least two paths, and wherein each of the at least two paths has a latency less than that of at least one of the other ones of the three or more candidate paths; and responsive to the determining the subset, directing by the processing system a first portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a first one of the paths of the subset and directing a second portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a second one of the paths of the subset.
However, in the analogous art, Ericson explicitly teaches setting, by the processing system, for the first path a possible split threshold and a possible merge threshold, the possible split threshold identifying a first traffic bandwidth which can triggers a re-directing of a portion of traffic from the first path to one or more other paths, the possible merge threshold identifying a second traffic bandwidth which triggers a merging of traffic to the first path, wherein the possible merge threshold is less than the possible split threshold, (Fig. 5-6, 8-13 (Please see Fig. 10) & ¶0142 - In block 1003, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, receives a configuration having a first data split threshold value and a second data split threshold value for modifying a data transmission path. In the method of FIG. 10, the second split data threshold value is greater than the first data split threshold value. ¶0054 - Advantages that may be achieved is: 1) by configuring the UE with multiple data buffer thresholds, it will be possible to configure the UE to only use a subset of the bandwidth available);
wherein the possible split threshold is determined on a per path basis for a plurality of paths and is dynamically adjusted for the first path based on a condition of the network at different points in time and on a historical traffic profile of the first path; (¶0054 - …and 2) by proper configuration of the thresholds, that can be applied by the network based on knowledge of the UE or radio conditions or network load e.g. it is possible to activate all carriers even at low buffer levels or load for some UEs. ¶0089 - In one embodiment, the UE is configured with a second threshold which acts as a hysteresis; … The hysteresis value or second threshold can be configured by the network in a signaling message from network to UE or it can be specified in the standard. ¶0090 - Also, when the network configures the UL data level thresholds indicates which paths are the primary path, secondary path and/or tertiary paths etc. The network may also configure a hysteresis which allows even further fine tuning of connections. ¶0097 - By making the hysteresis configurable by the network it is possible for the network to tune and optimize the performance based on performance measurements done in the network);
obtaining by the processing system, subsequent to the setting for the first path of the possible split threshold, alternate path data indicative of a plurality of alternate paths from the source router to the destination router, (¶0141 - Turning to FIG. 10, in block 1001, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, connects to three different cell groups where the UE is configured to use a primary transmission path in a first cell group of the three different cell groups, a secondary transmission path in a second cell group of the three different cell groups, and a tertiary transmission path in a third cell group of the three different cell groups. Fig. 14 & ¶0171 - Moreover, in different embodiments, the communication system 1400 may include any number of … network nodes … and/or any other components or systems that may facilitate or participate in the communication of data and/or signals whether via wired or wireless connections. ¶0178 - In some examples, the hub 1414 may be a controller, router, content source and analytics, or any of the other communication devices described herein regarding UEs);
wherein each of the plurality of alternate paths is different from the first path, wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path bandwidth capacity, (¶0054 - Advantages that may be achieved is: 1) by configuring the UE with multiple data buffer thresholds, it will be possible to configure the UE to only use a subset of the bandwidth available. ¶0141 - Turning to FIG. 10, in block 1001, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, connects to three different cell groups where the UE is configured to use a primary transmission path in a first cell group of the three different cell groups, a secondary transmission path in a second cell group of the three different cell groups, and a tertiary transmission path in a third cell group of the three different cell groups);
determining, by the processing system, whether a current traffic flow that is being carried via the first path is at or above the possible split threshold; (Fig. 10 & ¶0146 - In block 1009, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, determines whether the data buffer is greater than the second data split threshold value);
responsive to determining that the current traffic flow is at or above the possible split threshold, determining by the processing system whether each of three or more candidate paths of the plurality of alternate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path, (¶0045 - In dual connectivity, a UE can be configured with a split bearer to either increase the available bandwidth by utilizing radio resources from multiple base stations or provide reliability through redundancy by transmitting duplicate data packets via both paths. ¶0082 - When the network configures the second ul-SplitDataThreshold or the multiple paths, the network can indicate which paths are the primary path, secondary path and/or tertiary paths and/or any additional paths if more than 3 paths are configured. ¶0147 - Responsive to the data buffer being larger than the first data split threshold value and smaller than the second data split threshold, in block 1011, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, transmits the data via only the primary transmission path and the secondary transmission path. ¶0151 - In some embodiments, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, can periodically check the UL data buffer to determine which of the paths to transmit data upon based on comparing the UL data buffer to the first data split threshold value and the second data split threshold. For example, the wireless communication device 1500, using processing circuitry 1502, can check the UL data buffer after each transmission to compare the UL data buffer level to the first data split threshold value and the second data split threshold value);
wherein the determining whether each of the three or more candidate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path is based at least in part upon the current alternate path bandwidth capacity for each alternate path; (¶0045 - In dual connectivity, a UE can be configured with a split bearer to either increase the available bandwidth by utilizing radio resources from multiple base stations or provide reliability through redundancy by transmitting duplicate data packets via both paths. ¶0082 - When the network configures the second ul-SplitDataThreshold or the multiple paths, the network can indicate which paths are the primary path, secondary path and/or tertiary paths and/or any additional paths if more than 3 paths are configured);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Ericson to the teaching of Timmons. The motivation would be because the invention relates to communication methods and related devices and nodes supporting wireless communications (¶0001, Ericson).
Yet, Timmons and Ericson do not explicitly teach and wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path latency; responsive to determining that each of the three or more candidate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path, determining by the processing system a subset of the three or more candidate paths, wherein the subset comprises at least two paths, and wherein each of the at least two paths has a latency less than that of at least one of the other ones of the three or more candidate paths; and responsive to the determining the subset, directing by the processing system a first portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a first one of the paths of the subset and directing a second portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a second one of the paths of the subset.
However, in the analogous art, Lee explicitly teaches and wherein the alternate path data identifies for each of the plurality of alternate paths a respective current alternate path latency; (Fig. 3-7 & ¶12 - Other network metrics, such as latency… etc., may also be used to select the candidate overlay paths or to select an overlay path from the candidate paths. Please also see ¶20);
responsive to determining that each of the three or more candidate paths can support carrying of at least some of the current traffic flow that is being carried on the first path, determining by the processing system a subset of the three or more candidate paths, wherein the subset comprises at least two paths, (Fig. 3-7 & ¶26 - Several overlay paths may qualify as candidate overlay paths based on the comparison to the path switching threshold. ¶39 - FIG. 5A illustrates the DIN 410 sending a request for candidate overlay nodes and their respective paths to the neighboring DIN 411. The neighboring DIN 411 identifies, for example, the candidate overlay nodes 120h-j. ¶43 - According to another embodiment, both capacity and latency may be considered when selecting candidate overlay nodes and candidate overlay paths … candidate overlay paths are identified that satisfy equation (1), such as paths having a capacity greater than a times the capacity of the default path);
and wherein each of the at least two paths has a latency less than that of at least one of the other ones of the three or more candidate paths; (¶43 - Then, the paths with minimum latency are selected as the new candidate overlay paths…) and responsive to the determining the subset, directing by the processing system a first portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a first one of the paths of the subset and directing a second portion of the current traffic flow from the first path to a second one of the paths of the subset (Fig. 3-7 & ¶41 - The node 110s finds the closest overlay nodes to the node 110s, where closeness may be measured in terms of latency or another metric. The node 110s, for example, identifies the overlay nodes 120i-k as the closest overlay nodes and notifies the source node 110x that the overlay nodes 120i-k are the closest overlay nodes. The nodes 120i-k are the candidate overlay nodes in candidate overlay paths 140i-k. In one embodiment, the overlay nodes 120i-k are selected as candidate overlay nodes if the candidate overlay paths 140i-k satisfy predetermined standards…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Lee to the teachings of Timmons and Ericson. The motivation would be a fundamental challenge in effectively utilizing high-bandwidth network services is to provide these services and other data transmission without affecting the quality of the services (¶3, Lee).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timmons and Ericson and Lee, and further in view of Hoy.
Re. Claim 20, Timmons and Ericson and Lee teach Claim 19.
Yet, Timmons and Ericson and Lee do not explicitly teach the first portion and the second portion comprise a same amount of traffic.
However, in the analogous art, Hoy explicitly teaches the first portion and the second portion comprise a same amount of traffic (Fig. 5 & ¶0165 - Suppose that in the example above described in reference to FIG. 5, that VPN tunnel 511 was adequate to service Machine A and Machine B, however, application or administrator requests were made for VPN service for Machines C and D, and a single VPN tunnel could not fulfill the bandwidth requirements for all four machines … However, the VPN Manager might establish that the requirements for Machines A and C are more compatible than Machines A and B, and so it would be most efficient to have one VPN tunnel service Machines A and C and a second VPN tunnel service B and D. Examiner interprets the first/second portion of traffic originated for Machines A and B, and now are split to service Machines A and C, and B and D, therefore are equally split and have the same amount of traffic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Hoy to the teachings of Timmons and Ericson and Lee. The motivation would be because the present invention provides a means to provide more highly tuned VPNs based on application requirements and topology requirements (¶0023, Hoy).
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 ALYSSA WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7673. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571) 270-0422. 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.
/ALYSSA WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465