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 have been considered but are 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.
Specifically, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections of 112(a) and 112(b); however, their concluding arguments are moot because they did not account for the current prior art of record, Tedaldi et al. (US 20230027995 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240113970 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
1. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the executable header hard-codes intermediary nodes on the network that route the target data packet.” However, it is unclear how the executable header would be able to hardcode an otherwise unknown intermediary node.
Claim 10 recites “the executable header hard-codes a routing device.” However, it is unclear how the executable header would be able to hardcode an otherwise unknown routing device.
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tedaldi et al. (US 20230027995 A1) in view of Chen (US 20240113970 A1).
Claim 1 Tedaldi teaches an artificial intelligence (“AI”) method for dynamically rerouting network traffic on a network, the method comprising extracting computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium (FIG. 2, memory 240) and executing the computer readable instructions on a processor, (FIG. 2, processor 220) wherein execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor:
simulates the data transmission in a digital twin environment, wherein the digital twin environment comprises a virtual representation of the network; (¶0094, performing simulations of changes in the network, Examiner notes that simulating changes in the network, i.e. a digital environment, inherently requires simulating the network itself)
simulates a change to the digital twin environment; (¶0094, simulating changes)
determines a target routing path that utilizes a subset of routing devices between the source and the destination based on the simulated data transmission and the change; (FIG. 5, Action Evaluation Engine (AEE) 504, ¶0075-¶0084, determining a new path based on simulating the changes, Examine notes that the target routing path would inherently include a subset of routing devices comprising at least the source and the destination)
presents an option to force use of the target routing path for the data transmission; (FIG. 5, recommendation user interface (RUE) 508, ¶0086, presenting a user interface, i.e. an option, to adopt the recommendation, i.e. the use of the target routing path for the data transmission) and
in response to receiving a selection of the option: (¶0086, the user accepting the recommendation) implements the change to the network; (FIG. 7, ¶0089, implementing the routing change) and
wherein implementing the change includes: changing a default routing pathway in the network; (FIG. 7, ¶0092, making the routing path the default routing path for traffic) and altering configuration settings of network hardware. (FIG. 7, ¶0092, making the configuration changes to the network hardware for the new routing path)
However Tedaldi does not explicitly teach receiving a request for a data transmission from a source to a destination; and
effectuates the data transmission over the target routing path.
From a related technology, Chen teaches receiving a request for a data transmission from a source to a destination; (FIG. 4, S41, ¶0048, receiving a data transmission request) and effectuates the data transmission over the target routing path. (FIG. 4, S42, ¶0049, implementing the data transmission of a target routing path)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tedaldi to incorporate the data transmission request handling techniques implemented by Chen in order to more effectively manage requests alongside the simulated routing paths and improve network efficiency.
Claim 2 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the target routing path prevents one or more data packets included in the data transmission from leaving the network. (Examiner notes this recites a negative limitation, and that as Tedaldi in view Chen does not have the one or more data packets leaving the network, that this is sufficient to teach preventing one or more data packets leaving it)
Claim 3 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 2, and further teaches wherein the target routing path comprises a first router and a second router, (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0092, wherein the target path comprises a source and destination router) and the execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor dynamically programs the first router to transmit the one or more data packets only to the second router. (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0092, implementing the recommended path, i.e. programming the router to transmit to the second router)
Claim 4 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 3, and further teaches wherein the execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor dynamically programs the first router to override a default routing algorithm associated with a routing protocol in effect on the network. (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0092, making the routing path the default routing path for traffic, i.e. overwriting the default routing path, i.e. algorithm)
Claim 5 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the target routing path circumvents at least one routing device. (Examiner notes that it is inherent that a routing path circumvents routing devices not on the path)
Claim 6 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the target routing path circumvents a target network. (Examiner notes that it is inherent that a routing path circumvents routing networks that are not part of the path)
Claim 7 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the target routing path is a first target routing path and the execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor:
detects a threshold transmission latency on the network; (Tedaldi, ¶0083, detecting a threshold for application traffic, i.e. transmission latency)
increases network traffic by activating data packet tracing; based on the data packet tracing, identifies a bottleneck within the network; in response to detecting the bottleneck, determines an impact of the bottleneck on the first target routing path; (Tedaldi, ¶0094, simulating changes, such as the impact of a bottleneck on the traffic)
before effectuating the data transmission, presents a second target routing path that bypasses the bottleneck; (Tedaldi, FIG. 5, recommendation user interface (RUE) 508, ¶0086, presenting a user interface, i.e. an option, to adopt another recommendation, i.e. the use of the target routing path for the data transmission) and
in response to receiving approval of the second target routing path, effectuating the data transmission over the second target routing path. (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0089, implementing the routing change, i.e. effectuating the changed path)
Claim 8 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 7, and further teaches computes a first estimated delivery delay for effectuating the data transmission over the first target routing path; (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0090, evaluating replay scenarios such as time for delivery)
computes a second estimated delivery delay for effectuating the data transmission over the second target routing path; (Tedaldi, FIG. 7, ¶0090, evaluating replay scenarios such as time for delivery) and
when a difference between the first and second estimated delivery delays is greater than a threshold value, presents the second target routing path that bypasses the bottleneck. (Examiner notes that this is a conditional limitation that does not have patentable weight)
Claim 9 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor effectuates the data transmission over the target routing path by inserting an executable header into a target data packet; the executable header hard-codes intermediary nodes on the network that route the target data packet; (See 112(b) rejection, for purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the claim limitation as an intended use statement, wherein the header is merely intended for this purpose, but the recited method does not include the implementation of the hard-coding)
the intermediary nodes are on the target routing path; (Tedaldi, FIG. 3B, ¶0042, wherein an intermediary node is on the routing path) and
the target routing path is a circuitous routing path. (Tedaldi, FIG. 6, ¶0088, wherein the routing path is circuitous)
Claim 10 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 1, and further teaches execution of the computer readable instructions by the processor effectuates the data transmission over the target routing path by inserting an executable header into a target data packet; the executable header hard-codes a routing device, included in the network, with a target hardware profile that rejects any data packet included in the data transmission; (See 112(b) rejection, for purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the claim limitation as an intended use statement, wherein the header is merely intended for this purpose, but the recited method does not include the implementation of the hard-coding) and
the routing device is separate from the subset of routing devices. (Tedaldi, FIG. 6, ¶0088, wherein the routing is separate from other routing devices)
Claim 11 is taught by Tedaldi in view of Chen as described for Claim 1.
Claim 12 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 11, and further teaches wherein the secure transmission path that bypasses the target geographic region (Examiner notes that it is inherent that a routing path bypasses geographic regions not along the path) comprises more intermediary nodes than a default transmission path that passes through the target geographic region. (Tedaldi, FIG. 3B, INT3, ¶0042, wherein the alternate path comprises more intermediary nodes than the default node)
Claim 13 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 12, and further teaches wherein routing the data packet along the secure transmission path requires more time for the data packet to reach the destination node than routing the data packet along the default transmission path. (Tedaldi, ¶0083, wherein the secure path requires more time than the default path)
Claim 14 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 11, and further teaches the computer executable instructions, when executed by the processor on the computer system changes a routing configuration setting of the target intermediary node. (Examiner notes this comprises a conditional limitation and does not have patentable weight)
Claim 15 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 11, and further teaches wherein the secure header, upon arrival at the target intermediary node, records a location of the target intermediary node and transmits the location to the source node. (Examiner notes that “upon arrival at the target intermediary node” comprises an conditional limitation and does not have patentable weight)
Claim 16 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 11, and further teaches wherein the secure header configures the target intermediary node to record an identifier of the target intermediary node in the secure header before transmitting the data packet; (Examiner notes that the intermediary node is not a part of the recited computer system and thus is outside the scope of the claim and lacks patentable weight) and
after receiving the data packet, the destination node transmits the identifier to the source node. (Examiner notes that the destination node is not a part of the recited computer system and thus is outside the scope of the claim and lacks patentable weight)
Claim 17 is taught by Tedaldi in view of Chen as described for Claim 1.
Claim 18 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 17, and further teaches wherein the alternative data routing pathway forces the data packet to be processed by an intermediary node within a threshold geographic distance of a source node that generated the data packet. (Tedaldi, FIG. 3B, INT3, ¶0042, wherein the alternate path comprises an intermediary nodes processing the packet, MPLS 306c within a geographic threshold distance, i.e. between remote site and regional hub)
Claim 19 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 17, and further teaches wherein the alternative data routing pathway bypasses a target geographic region. (Examiner notes that it is inherent that a routing path bypasses geographic regions not along the path)
Claim 20 Tedaldi in view of Chen teaches Claim 17, and further teaches wherein the alternative data routing pathway comprises more intermediary nodes than the default routing pathway. (Tedaldi, FIG. 3B, INT3, ¶0042, wherein the alternate path comprises more intermediary nodes than the default node)
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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Trost can be reached at (571) 272-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2442
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2442