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 Amendment
Rejections of claims 17-20 under 35 USC §112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore claims 1-13 are allowed.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claims 14-20 are not persuasive.
Ghandi teaches [0067] Based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end measurement, first intermediate network element simply forwards the packet (without performing any PM related action for data packet 114) to second intermediate network element 104.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would understand this teaches “each of the plurality of packets is received from an upstream node different from the head node that did not add timestamp information to the plurality of packets” as amended in claim 14. It also teaches “wherein the controller does not receive a timestamp from either the first network node or from the head node upstream of the first network node as part of receiving and saving the received transmission delay”.
For the reasons above, claims 14-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi; Rakesh et al. US PGPUB 20200084147 A1, further in view of Lumezanu; Cristian et al. US PGPUB 20150052243 A1.
Regarding claim 14. Gandhi teaches A first network node for in-situ flow detection, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; (Fig. 12B, Memory 1304) and a processor coupled to the memory, (Fig. 12B Processor 1302) wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the execution of the instructions cause the first network node to:
perform, in a detection domain, , ([0090] Referring to FIG. 5, FIG. 5 is a simplified diagram illustrating network 100 in which other techniques for in-situ passive PM may be implemented,) the following operations on each of a plurality of packets in a first service flow received: (Fig. 5, Flow 112)
receiving each of the plurality of packets, wherein in-situ flow detection information of each of the plurality of packets carries a first timestamp, (Fig. 12B, port 1312, [0090] consider that first network element 102 receives first data packet 114 and determines, based on matching information for first data packet 114 to an ACL configured for SR Policy {16105} that is associated with hop-by-hop recording with end-to-end measurement for DM (for this example) is to be performed.)
and the first timestamp of each packet indicates a moment at which a head node in the detection domain receives each packet; ([0049] a receive (RX) timestamp may identify receive time information associated with the time at which a network node or the time at which a network node or element receives a packet.) wherein each of the plurality of packets is received from an upstream node different from the head node that did not add timestsamp information to the plurality of packets ([0067] Based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end measurement, first intermediate network element simply forwards the packet (without performing any PM related action for data packet 114) to second intermediate network element 104. )
determining a second timestamp of each of the plurality of packets, wherein the second timestamp of each packet indicates a moment at which each packet is received through an outbound interface of the first network node; (0120) Consider, in one example, a 5 hop SR Policy. In this example, the ingress node may add metadata that contains 5 timestamps all initialized with some known values to indicate timestamps need to be written by each of the 5 hop nodes. In this manner, transit nodes do not need to manipulate the size of the metadata memory allocation. This is in particular used for the hop-by-hop recording with end-to-end measurement PLI type {PLI(3)}.) and
determining, based on the first timestamp carried in each packet and the second timestamp of each packet, an end-to-end transmission delay of the first service flow from the head node to the first network node. ([0069] The egress node (second network element 105), upon receiving data packet 114, analyzes PLI 124 to determine one or more performance measurement related actions based on the performance measurement type identified by {PLI(1)}. For example, based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end PM and based on the PM metadata type for DM, the egress node copies the SR Policy label {16105} and PM metadata 125 in a local buffer header (which is a memory for the packet internally allocated, for example, on a Linecard as a cache to send information from the data-plane to the control-plane), collects measurement information such as an RX timestamp indicating the receive time for data packet 114, copies the RX timestamp in the local buffer header, and further processes the buffer header using the performance measurement process operating in the control-plane of the egress node. Data packet 114 is forwarded downstream to second customer edge node)
said end-to-end transmission delay includes a link delay associated with the upstream node ([0031] In some cases, in 5G networks, there is a requirement to measure end-to-end delay for customer traffic flow that includes all internal delay within the ingress, transit and egress nodes.)
Gandhi does not teach A first in-situ flow detection period.
However, Lumezanu teaches
A first in-situ flow detection period. ([0032] The third parameter may be duration: (e.g., for how long each origin-destination pair is monitored) Varying the duration of a monitoring rule allows for a trade-off of the amount of traffic that is captured (and thus the accuracy of the measurement) for scalability.) in order to balance monitoring accuracy with measurement scalability ([0032])
Gandhi and Lumezanu are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Gandhi with the technique of monitoring period in Lumezanu in order to balance monitoring accuracy with measurement scalability.
Regarding claim 15. Gandhi and Lumezanu teach The first network node according to claim 14, and Gandhi teaches wherein the in-situ flow detection information further comprises indication information, and the indication information indicates that the in-situ flow detection is end-to-end per-packet in-situ flow detection. ([0041] For example, a PLI may be for a hop-by-hop measurement (e.g., {PLI(2)}, as discussed herein), end-to-end measurement (e.g., {PLI(1)}, as discussed herein), or hop-by-hop recording with end-to-end measurement (e.g., {PLI(3)}, as discussed herein).)
Regarding claim 16. Gandhi and Lumezanu teach The first network node according to claim 14, Gandhi teaches wherein the instructions executed by the processor; further cause the first network node to perform the following operations:
determining, based on the first timestamp carried in each packet and the second timestamp of each packet, an end-to-end transmission delay of each packet from the head node to the first network node; and determining, based on the end-to-end transmission delay of each packet from the head node to the first network node, an end-to-end transmission delay of the first service flow from the head node to the first network node in the first in-situ flow detection period. ([0069] The egress node (second network element 105), upon receiving data packet 114, analyzes PLI 124 to determine one or more performance measurement related actions based on the performance measurement type identified by {PLI(1)}. For example, based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end PM and based on the PM metadata type for DM, the egress node copies the SR Policy label {16105} and PM metadata 125 in a local buffer header (which is a memory for the packet internally allocated, for example, on a Linecard as a cache to send information from the data-plane to the control-plane), collects measurement information such as an RX timestamp indicating the receive time for data packet 114, copies the RX timestamp in the local buffer header, and further processes the buffer header using the performance measurement process operating in the control-plane of the egress node. Data packet 114 is forwarded downstream to second customer edge node)
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi; Rakesh et al. US PGPUB 20200084147 A1, in view of Lumezanu; Cristian et al. US PGPUB 20150052243 A1, further in view of Clemm; Alexander et al. US PGPUB 20200052979 A1.
Regarding claim 17. A controller for in-situ flow detection, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; (Fig. 12B, Memory 1304) and a processor coupled to the memory, (Fig. 12B Processor 1302) wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the executed instructions cause the first network node to:
receive a transmission delay that is of a first service flow in a detection domain and that is sent by a first network node, ([0071] In at least one embodiment, the egress node (e.g., second network element 105) may notify an ingress node (e.g., first network element 102) with information (e.g., measurement information and/or calculations) about an end-to-end delay and/or loss of an SR Policy…. the collected measurement information may also be sent to a network controller (e.g. 110).)
wherein the controller does not receive a timestamp from either the first network node or from a head node upstream of the first network node as part of receiving and saving the received transmission delay ([0067] Based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end measurement, first intermediate network element simply forwards the packet (without performing any PM related action for data packet 114) to second intermediate network element 104. )
Gandhi does not teach
a first in-situ flow detection period
wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises any one or more of a maximum transmission delay, a minimum transmission delay, and an average transmission delay; and save the received transmission delay.
However, Lumezanu teaches
A first in-situ flow detection period. ([0032] The third parameter may be duration: (e.g., for how long each origin-destination pair is monitored) Varying the duration of a monitoring rule allows for a trade-off of the amount of traffic that is captured (and thus the accuracy of the measurement) for scalability.) in order to balance monitoring accuracy with measurement scalability ([0032])
Gandhi and Lumezanu are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Gandhi with the technique of monitoring period in Lumezanu in order to balance monitoring accuracy with measurement scalability.
Gandhi and Lumerzanu doesn’t teach wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises any one or more of a maximum transmission delay, a minimum transmission delay, and an average transmission delay; and save the received transmission delay.
However, Clemm teaches
wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises any one or more of a maximum transmission delay, a minimum transmission delay, and an average transmission delay; and save the received transmission delay. ([0073] A first example SLO stipulates that inter-packet delay variation (IPDV) should not exceed two milliseconds (ms). Accordingly, allowable IPDV may be defined as a requirement that minimum packet delays and maximum packet delays for a flow are maintained within a defined time range of each other, in this case plus or minus two ms (four ms). Such an SLO may be encoded as metadata in a BPP packet)
in order to ensure network service are within the requirement of a service level agreement ([0004])
Gandhi and Clemm are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Gandi with the technique of delay statistics in Clemm in order to ensure network service are within the requirement of a service level agreement.
Regarding claim 18. Gandhi, Lumezanu and Clemm teach The controller according to claim 17, and Gandhi teaches wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises: an end-to-end transmission delay from a head node in the detection domain to the first network node. ([0069] The egress node (second network element 105), upon receiving data packet 114, analyzes PLI 124 to determine one or more performance measurement related actions based on the performance measurement type identified by {PLI(1)}. For example, based on a determination that {PLI(1)} indicates an end-to-end PM and based on the PM metadata type for DM, the egress node copies the SR Policy label {16105} and PM metadata 125 in a local buffer header (which is a memory for the packet internally allocated, for example, on a Linecard as a cache to send information from the data-plane to the control-plane), collects measurement information such as an RX timestamp indicating the receive time for data packet 114, copies the RX timestamp in the local buffer header, and further processes the buffer header using the performance measurement process operating in the control-plane of the egress node. Data packet 114 is forwarded downstream to second customer edge node)
Gandhi does not teach in a first in-situ flow detection period.)
Regarding claim 19. Gandhi, Lumezanu and Clemm teach The controller according to claim 18, and Gandhi teaches wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises: a transmission delay of the first service flow in the first network node. ([0027] For Hop-by-hop delay measurement, the forwarding behavior requires, at least in part, transit node(s) to copy (the packet header in the buffer), (RX) timestamp (in the buffer header), punt and forward the packet. For hop-by-hop recording with end-to-end delay (E2E) measurement, the forwarding behavior requires, at least in part, transit node(s) to insert (RX) timestamp and forward the packet. Other Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) use-cases are also applicable. Performance loss measurement and some other use-cases may use sequence numbers.)
Regarding claim 20. Gandhi, Lumezanu and Clemm teach The controller according to claim 18, and Gandhi teaches wherein the transmission delay of the first service flow in the detection domain comprises: a transmission delay of the first service flow between the first network node and a second network node, wherein the first network node is a transit node or a tail node in the detection domain, and the second network node is an upstream node of the first network node. (Fig. 1 and 5, PE 5 is a tail node and PE 2, 3, 4 are upstream nodes)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
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 ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights