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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/28/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claim 21: it recites “A system for service mesh switching, the system comprising: means for receiving, at a networking infrastructure device, a packet that includes a service request for a service, the service including an application that spans multiple nodes in a network to which the networking infrastructure device belongs; means for selecting an out bound interface of the networking infrastructure device through which to route the packet, the networking infrastructure device including multiple outbound interfaces, for the packet based on: a service component of the service request in the packet; and network metrics that correspond to the service; and means for transmitting the packet using the outbound interface”.
A claim limitation invokes 112(f) if it meets the three-prong analysis: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder; (2) the term
“means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I). Under the first prong, “means are used as a generic placeholder. There are functions of “receiving, selecting, transmitting” coupled to the means. The structure of the system in the specification of the instant application is outlined in Fig 4, and Fig 10 wherein processing unit IPU and FPGA and corresponding description in the specification and algorithm for performing the functions as shown in the fig. 12 and in the paragraphs [0115-0117]. Therefore, the claim limitations invoke 112(f), however having a defined structure in the specification along with the algorithms of these functions would not invoke 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Moisand et al. (“Moisand”, US 20090279701 A1) hereinafter Moisand.
Regarding claim 1, Moisand teaches a networking infrastructure device (Fig. 12, Fig. 4, Fig. 18) for service mesh switching, the networking infrastructure device comprising:
multiple network interfaces (Fig. 4, Fig. 12, Fig. 18, SE router/Base stations with multiple Interface cards inbound and outbound interfaces); and
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured to ([0090] Control Unit has microprocessor, DSPs):
receive, via an in-bound interface of the multiple network interface, a packet that includes a service request for a service ([0112-0116] Control unit 136, for example, may receive a message requesting authentication and authorization for a VoIP call with a particular QoS class from a subscriber device 118 via one of inbound links 132 and IFCs 130.), the service including an application that spans multiple nodes in a network ([0079, 0125, 0133] exchange information through message, information about routing information, profile, control message in the network)([0139][0161])([0010] a router of a transport network, such as those maintained by network service providers, may receive a request to provide a service to a subscriber device. For example, the request may request a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, a web-conference service, a IP Television (IPTV) service, a multicast service, a streaming video service or any other type of service commonly provided by a network service provider.) to which the networking infrastructure device belongs;
select, from the multiple network interfaces, an outbound interface of the networking infrastructure device through which to route the packet ([0112-0120] Control unit 136, for example, may receive a message requesting authentication and authorization for a VoIP call with a particular QoS class from a subscriber device 118 via one of inbound links 132 and IFCs 130, provide packet transmission according to a requested QoS class for a unicast packet flow), the multiple network interfaces including multiple outbound interfaces ([0078, 0082] outputs the packets on network links 54, Control unit 56 also determines which of links 54 to forward multicast packets of the requested stream on to reach the requesting one of destination devices 26, and associates the determined link with the IP address of the multicast group for the requested stream within multicast elaboration information 32. In some embodiments, control unit 56 also identifies a preconfigured VC or VLAN associated with the IP address for the requested stream, or dynamically associates a VC or VLAN with the IP address for the requested stream. Control unit 56 forwards multicast packets of the requested stream on the associated VC or VLAN.)([]), for the packet based on:
a service component of the service request in the packet ([0109, 0112-0120] Voice over IP, VOIP call, Voice communication); and
network metrics that correspond to the service ([0112-0120] the SE router 112 and the CPE device use QoS information to provide packet transmission according to a requested QoS class for a unicast packet flow, Based on the information contained in the control message, CPE device 114 dynamically configures a QoS profile 120 for a layer-2 link between CPE device 114 and the subscriber device 118 (172). CPE device 114 forwards VoIP packets to the attached subscriber device and to switch via the layer-2 link to provide packet transmission according to the requested QoS class by, for example, preferentially queuing the VoIP packets (174))([0007] A QoS class may define a bandwidth allocation and burst size to support a level of communication throughput for subscriber devices within that QoS class.)([0059-0060, 0109] QOS indicates bandwidth); and
transmit the packet using the outbound interface ([0078, 0082] Control Unit 56 outputs the packets on network links 54, Control unit 56 also determines which of links 54 to forward multicast packets of the requested stream on to reach the requesting one of destination devices 26,)
Regarding claim 2, Moisand teaches the networking infrastructure device of claim 1,
Moisand teaches wherein the networking infrastructure device includes a service registry ([0010] a router of a transport network, such as those maintained by network service providers, may receive a request to provide a service to a subscriber device. For example, the request may request a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, a web-conference service, a IP Television (IPTV) service, a multicast service, a streaming video service or any other type of service commonly provided by a network service provider.), wherein the service has a corresponding entry in the service registry, and wherein at least a portion of the network metrics that correspond to the service are stored in the corresponding entry ([0011] the router accesses a subscriber context associated with the subscriber device. The subscriber context defines information for providing the service to the subscriber device, such as a level or quality of service, encryption keys, address information, multicast group memberships, and charging and accounting information to account for the services provided to the particular subscriber device. The router may, for example, access the subscriber context to retrieve a quality of service (QoS) class contracted by the subscriber device for particular flows associated with a particular application, e.g., VoIP.).
Regarding claim 8, Moisand teaches the networking infrastructure device of claim 1,
Moisand teaches wherein the networking infrastructure device is a network processing unit included in a node of the network ([0089-0090] Control unit 56 may include one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), or other logic circuitry. Control unit 56 may include memory (not shown) that stores computer-readable program instructions that cause control unit 56 to perform the functions ascribed to it herein).
Regarding claim 9, Moisand teaches the networking infrastructure device of claim 1,
Moisand teaches wherein the networking infrastructure device is included in a switch of the network (Fig. 4, SE Router, Fig. 5 Switch).
Regarding claim 10, Moisand teaches the networking infrastructure device of claim 9,
Moisand teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a portion of the network metrics from a second switch, the portion of the network metrics relating to nodes directly connected to the second switch ([0125] Switch 184 may also exchange queuing profile information between CPE device 186 and SE router 182, and provide a MAC address for CPE device 186 to SE router 182. Switch 184 may exchange information with SE router 182 using the same messaging protocol described herein as being used by routers to provide control messages to data link layer devices, e.g., may send in-band IP packets containing the messages)([0079]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
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.
Claims 3-7, 13-17, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Moisand et al. (“Moisand”, US 20090279701 A1) hereinafter Moisand, in view of Smith et al. (“Smith”, US 20190327328 A1) hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 3, Moisand teaches the networking infrastructure device of claim 1,
Moisand does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches
wherein the network is a named function network (NFN) ([0019-0025, NFN]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moisand in view of Smith in order to have an NFN (ICN network) because it the information-centric network (ICN) {NFN} facilitates data fulfillment for client computing devices based on the data that is being requested rather than based on specifying a computing device hosting the data. This allows the data to be provided from a nearest storage source rather than traversing the network to retrieve data from a specified source (Smith [0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Moisand and Smith teach the networking infrastructure device of claim 3,
Moisand does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches
wherein the service component is a name for a named function, and wherein the application includes multiple named functions ([0035-0037] content delivery application, pull data, access content, send video or content, data cache management, retrieve data, checking the content whether it is available, finding the interest packet).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moisand in view of Smith in order to have an NFN (ICN network) because it the information-centric network (ICN) {NFN} facilitates data fulfillment for client computing devices based on the data that is being requested rather than based on specifying a computing device hosting the data. This allows the data to be provided from a nearest storage source rather than traversing the network to retrieve data from a specified source (Smith [0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 5, Moisand and Smith teach the networking infrastructure device of claim 3,
Moisand does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches
wherein the networking infrastructure device implements information centric networking (ICN), and wherein the networking infrastructure device includes a forward information base (FIB) to match the name for the named function and the outbound interface ([0028-0029] To facilitate routing, the network elements may use a forwarding information base 125 (FIB) to match named data to an interface (e.g., physical port) for the route. Thus, the FIB 125 operates much like a routing table on a traditional network device, additional meta-data may be attached to the interest packet 130, the cached data, or the route (e.g., in the FIB 125), to provide an additional level of matching. For example, the data name may be specified as “www.somedomain.com or videos or v8675309,” but also include a version number—or timestamp, time range, endorsement, etc. In this example, the interest packet 130 may specify the desired name, the version number, or the version range. The matching may then locate routes or cached data matching the name and perform the additional comparison of meta-data or the like to arrive at an ultimate decision as to whether data or a route matches the interest packet 130 for respectively responding to the interest packet 130 with the data packet 145 or forwarding the interest packet 130.)([0036] FIB).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moisand in view of Smith in order to have an NFN (ICN network) because it the information-centric network (ICN) {NFN} facilitates data fulfillment for client computing devices based on the data that is being requested rather than based on specifying a computing device hosting the data. This allows the data to be provided from a nearest storage source rather than traversing the network to retrieve data from a specified source (Smith [0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Moisand and Smith teach the networking infrastructure device of claim 5,
Moisand does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches
wherein the FIB includes the network metrics that correspond to names that are part of the service ([0028-0029] To facilitate routing, the network elements may use a forwarding information base 125 (FIB) to match named data to an interface (e.g., physical port) for the route. Thus, the FIB 125 operates much like a routing table on a traditional network device, additional meta-data may be attached to the interest packet 130, the cached data, or the route (e.g., in the FIB 125), to provide an additional level of matching. For example, the data name may be specified as “www.somedomain.com or videos or v8675309,” but also include a version number—or timestamp, time range, endorsement, etc. In this example, the interest packet 130 may specify the desired name, the version number, or the version range. The matching may then locate routes or cached data matching the name and perform the additional comparison of meta-data or the like to arrive at an ultimate decision as to whether data or a route matches the interest packet 130 for respectively responding to the interest packet 130 with the data packet 145 or forwarding the interest packet 130.)([0036] FIB).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moisand in view of Smith in order to have an NFN (ICN network) because it the information-centric network (ICN) {NFN} facilitates data fulfillment for client computing devices based on the data that is being requested rather than based on specifying a computing device hosting the data. This allows the data to be provided from a nearest storage source rather than traversing the network to retrieve data from a specified source (Smith [0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Moisand and Smith teach the networking infrastructure device of claim 6,
Moisand does not explicitly teach, but Smith teaches
wherein a second outbound interface matches the name for the named function, and wherein the outbound interface is selected based on network metrics for the outbound interface indicating greater performance of the service than network metrics for the second outbound interface ([0042-0045] Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B, Fig. 5C, weights are givens to paths and links based on performance metrics such as latency wherein different links from the same network device are connecting to different neighboring network devices through different interfaces).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Moisand in view of Smith in order to have an NFN (ICN network) because it the information-centric network (ICN) {NFN} facilitates data fulfillment for client computing devices based on the data that is being requested rather than based on specifying a computing device hosting the data. This allows the data to be provided from a nearest storage source rather than traversing the network to retrieve data from a specified source (Smith [0019-0025]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444