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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/26/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al. “Tran” US 10,461,421 in view of Qiao et al. “Qiao” US 2019/0053104 further in view of Kerboeuf et al. “Kerboeuf” US 2021/0392040 and in view of Sun et al. “Sun” CN 111385207-A (see attached for citations/translation).
Regarding claim 21, Tran teaches a hardware forwarding element comprising:
a data plane forwarding circuit to perform a slice-based data plane forwarding operations on a set of data messages received by the forwarding element (Column 18 Lines 34-46 teaches a data plane for exchanging/forwarding data messages though the SDN, see also Figure 7a and Column 72 Lines 38-65. Column 71 Lines 19-23 disclose the use of time slices, thus one can see there is slice-based forwarding capabilities); and
a control plane circuit comprising a set of processing units and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a slice identifier (ID) specifying program for execution by the set of processing units (Column 18 Lines 34-46 teaches a data plane for exchanging/forwarding data messages though the SDN. Further the data/forwarding/control planes are for forwarding traffic to a next hop; Column 72 Lines 62-65; Figure 7A).
Tran teaches the use of networking slicing and forwarding as discussed previously, however does not expressly disclose specifying/providing slice IDs associated with the messages to the data plane forwarding to perform slice-based forwarding. Qiao teaches a network slice ID is created and used in determining routing on packets; Paragraphs 121, 132 and 137.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Tran to include generating network slice IDs for routing purposes as taught by Qiao.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that packets can be properly routed as taught by Qiao; Paragraph 132.
The prior art does not expressly disclose each network slice is associated with a service chain specifying an ordered sequence of operations to perform on the data associated with the network slice; however, Kerboeuf teaches network slices are mapped to a set of service function chains; Paragraph 70, see also paragraphs 36-37. SFCs provide types of services for the slices; Paragraph 89.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include network slices associated with a service chain for operations to perform on data as taught by Kerboeuf.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a slice can be associated with a s4et of SFCs which provide services without any loss of generality as taught by Kerboeuf; Paragraph 89.
The prior art does not expressly disclose using slice IDs to choose between different hops of different paths to a same destination node; however, Sun teaches slice-ID1 and slice-ID2. The first slice ID represents the path PE1 to P3 to PE2 and the second slice ID represents PE1 to P4 to PE2. This is a hop by hop forwarding using different paths for the same destination (PE2); Figure 3 and Page 8 Step 4 to Page 9 first paragraph. Thus one can see there are multiple slice IDs corresponding to different paths using different next hops that route data to the same destination as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include using slice IDs to choose between different next hops of different paths for the same destination as taught by Sun.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can realize different VPN service demands as taught by Sun; Page 8 paragraph starting with “The embodiment shown in Fig. 3…”.
Regarding claim 22, Tran teaches the use of networking slicing and forwarding between data and control planes (Column 18 Lines 34-46 teaches a data plane for exchanging/forwarding data messages though the SDN. Further the data/forwarding/control planes are for forwarding traffic to a next hop; Column 72 Lines 62-65; Figure 7A. Thus one can see the forwarding information is provided to the control plane from the data plane). Tran, however, does not expressly disclose providing slice IDs associated with each of messages. Qiao teaches a network slice ID is created and used in determining routing on packets; Paragraphs 121, 132 and 137.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Tran to include generating network slice IDs for routing purposes as taught by Qiao.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that packets can be properly routed as taught by Qiao; Paragraph 132.
Regarding claim 23, Tran teaches the use of networking slicing and forwarding between data and control planes (Column 18 Lines 34-46 teaches a data plane for exchanging/forwarding data messages though the SDN. Further the data/forwarding/control planes are for forwarding traffic to a next hop; Column 72 Lines 62-65; Figure 7A. Thus one can see the forwarding information is provided to the control plane from the data plane). Tran, however, does not expressly disclose providing flow IDs associated with each of messages. Qiao teaches a network slice ID (flow ID) is created and used in determining routing on packets; Paragraphs 121, 132 and 137.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Tran to include generating network slice IDs for routing purposes as taught by Qiao.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that packets can be properly routed as taught by Qiao; Paragraph 132.
Regarding claim 24, Tran teaches the second sets of forwarding operations include one or more service operations to perform on a set of data received (Column 18 Lines 34-46 teaches a data plane for exchanging/forwarding data messages though the SDN. Further, service chaining and network slicing can take place. Further the data/forwarding/control planes are for forwarding traffic to a next hop; Column 72 Lines 50-65; Figure 7A).
Claim 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Qiao in view of Kerboeuf in view of Sun and further in view of Gopinath et al. “Gopinath” US 2020/0314029.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art does not disclose the use of a Linux operating system with a container to perform operations. However, Gopinath teaches a NFV platform which utilizes a hypervisor and forwarding functions; Paragraphs 48 and 51. Further, the system includes Linux containers; Paragraph 75.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include Linux with a container as taught by Gopinath.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly perform NFC layer2/3 forwarding as taught by Gopinath Paragraph 48.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art does not disclose the program is a container machine. However, Gopinath teaches a NFV platform which utilizes a hypervisor and forwarding functions; Paragraphs 48 and 51. Further, the system includes Linux containers; Paragraph 75.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include Linux with a container as taught by Gopinath.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly perform NFC layer2/3 forwarding as taught by Gopinath Paragraph 48.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art does not disclose the program is a virtual machine executing over a hypervisor. However, Gopinath teaches a NFV platform which utilizes a hypervisor and forwarding functions; Paragraphs 48 and 51. Further, the system includes Linux containers; Paragraph 75.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include a hypervisor as taught by Gopinath.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly perform NFC layer2/3 forwarding as taught by Gopinath Paragraph 48.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art does not disclose the program is a virtual machine executing over a hypervisor including a module to perform forwarding. However, Gopinath teaches a NFV platform which utilizes a hypervisor and forwarding functions; Paragraphs 48 and 51. Further, the system includes Linux containers; Paragraph 75.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include a hypervisor with modules for forwarding data as taught by Gopinath.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can properly perform NFC layer2/3 forwarding as taught by Gopinath Paragraph 48.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-28 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.
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411