DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and RCE filed, 17 April 2025, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 24 October 2022 in which claims 1, 16, 29, 30 have been amended, claim 27, 31 cancelled, and claims 32-33 have been added. Claims 1-26, 29-30, 32-33 are pending in the application.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26, 29-30, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are amended to add ‘generating a third data flow model based at least in part on iteratively updating the updated first data flow model until expected data flow rates using the updated first data flow model and the second data flow model differ by an amount that satisfies an accuracy threshold’. However, the specification outlines in par. 63, for example, that (actual) data flow rates are monitored and updated in order to determine if they differ from the expected flow rates. See “network entity may update the data flow model based at least in part on adding a virtual link to one or more flows that are identified by a neighbor network entity to have a flow rate that differs from the expected flow rate using the current iteration of the data flow model”. In other words, updating the data model is done until flow rates are more accurate not updating them until expected flow rates change or are more accurate.
It is further indefinite if the ‘selectively updating’ is performed once or iteratively, as the amendment (selectively) updates the first model once, then generates a third model once based on repeatedly/iteratively updating the first model? Is the third model that is generated just the updated first model? Is the error different from not satisfying the accuracy threshold?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-26, 29-30, 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tabatabaeimehr et al (hereinafter “Tabatabaeimehr”, IDS 5/10/23 NPL – Cooperative Learning for Disaggregated Delay Modeling in Multidomain Networks).
As per Claim 1, Tabatabaeimehr discloses a method performed by a first network entity, comprising:
generating a first data flow model for a first set of paths that traverse the first network entity (at least fig. 3, page 4-5; path/segment delay models of analyzed delay of groups of paths that cross a domain; intra-domain model obtained by each domain controller from delay and throughput measurements collected for each segment of that domain; inter-domain model including intra-domain models);
receiving, directly from a second network entity, an indication of a second data flow model for a second set of paths that traverse the second network entity, the first set including at least one path that is within the second set (at least page 2: “One possible architecture to provide e2e services is that of peer-to-peer, where operators exchange information among them directly”; p. 3: “collaborative approach between the domains and the broker, where the latter provides multidomain connectivity with QoS constraints to end customers”; p. 4/ Fig. 2: “the inferred model for the path request between RA.x to RB.x could be obtained by composing an e2e delay model from segments models: p1(A), p1(A-B), and p2(B) (Fig. 2b). Note that intradomain segment models need to be computed by the domains themselves based on, e.g., active measurements carried out between the access/inter-domain interfaces for a given path in the domain”);
selectively updating the first data flow model based at least in part on whether the indication of the second data flow model indicates an error in the first data flow model (at least Fig. 3, pages 6-8; inter-domain link delay modeling with intra-domain model correction such that when a delay error is determined for paths in the inter-domain model, correcting by tuning and adapting paths/links within the intra-domain delay model inaccuracies); and
generating a third data flow model based at least in part on iteratively updating the updated first data flow model until expected data flow rates using the updated first data flow model and the second data flow model differ by an amount that satisfies an accuracy threshold (at least page 7-8, 12; intra-domain model correction, whereby inaccurate intra-domain link delays are detected and identified that differ from expected delays; “models are obtained during the commissioning testing phase and updated periodically using active probes, which, as discussed in the introduction, need to be properly configured as otherwise, delay measurements could largely differ from those experienced by the real traffic, thus resulting in inaccurate intra-domain delay modeling”; As score s is expected to increase when inaccuracies become larger, to demonstrate the validity of the detection and localization method we need to demonstrate that it is possible to set up a threshold value that discriminates inaccuracies with high precision, thus ensuring that accurate models robustly produce score values clearly under the threshold.”; “We observe that despite some oscillations in the score, the obtained results do not exceed s = 1, whose value can be set as the threshold that separates accurate from inaccurate intra-domain models”).
As per Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the second data flow model indicates an expected flow rate of a path that traverses between the first network entity and the second network entity (at least Fig. 3, pages 5-7; identifying segment or path with delay higher than expected; inter-domain link delay component estimation).
As per Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the indication of the second data flow model indicates the error in the first data flow model based at least in part on the expected flow rate of the path differing from a modeled flow rate of the path as modeled in the first data flow model (at least Fig. 3, pages 5-7; correcting the already determined values of the intra-domain model; identifying segment or path with error/delay higher than expected).
As per Claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the second data flow model indicates one or more of: a structure of the second data flow model, a set of links of the second data flow model, capacities of the set of links of the second data flow model, one or more bottleneck links of the second data flow model, a set of flows of the second data flow model, a set of paths of the second data flow model, or one or more flow rates of the set of flows or the set of paths of the second data flow model (at least Fig. 3, pages 5-7).
As per Claim 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, based at least in part on the second data flow model, a data flow model that includes the first data flow model and the second data flow model (at least Fig. 4, pages 3, 5-7; broker building multidomain end to end model prediction with multiple path models; e2e delay model as combination of intra-domain and inter domain link models).
As per Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising one or more of: transmitting a request for the indication of the second data flow model; or receiving a request for an indication of the first data flow model (at least Fig. 3-4, pages 5-7).
As per Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the indication of the second data flow model indicates the error in the first data flow model based at least in part on one or more data flows or paths that traverse the first network entity having a bottleneck link outside of the first network entity (at least Fig. 3, pages 6-7; inter-domain link delay modeling with intra-domain model correction such that when a delay error is determined for the inter-domain model, correcting by tuning and adapting the intra-domain delay model inaccuracies).
As per Claim 8. The method of claim 1 further comprising one or more of: performing data flow management based at least in part on the first data flow model; or transmitting an indication of one or more bottlenecks based at least in part on the first data flow model (at least Fig. 3, page 8; ie. link delay disaggregation optimization such that the broker would send the intra-domain model correction to a domain controller for route optimization/data flow management).
As per Claim 9. The method of claim 8, wherein performing the data flow management comprises performing one or more of: traffic engineering, routing, flow control, flow scheduling, capacity planning, network change planning, robustness analysis, service level agreement management, resilience analysis, network modeling, flow performance prediction, or resource allocation (at least Fig. 3, page 8; ie. link delay disaggregation optimization such that the broker would send the intra-domain model correction to a domain controller for route optimization/data flow management).
As per Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, to one or more additional network entities a request to identify a source of a bottleneck of a data flow or a path (at least Fig. 3; page 3, 9; detection of the source of the inaccuracy; updated periodically using active probes).
As per Claim 11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: detecting a failure to satisfy a service level agreement associated with the data flow or the path, wherein transmitting the request to identify the source of the bottleneck of the data flow or the path is based at least in part on detecting the failure to satisfy the service level agreement (at least page 1, 3; SLA and QoS constraints to end customers, procedures for e2e delay modeling for QoS assurance).
As per Claim 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request to identify a source of a bottleneck of a data flow or a path, and transmitting an indication of the bottleneck of the data flow or the path (at least page 3; detection of the source of the inaccuracy and compound e2e delay modeling including for domainA).
As per Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the second network entity is a neighbor network entity relative to the first network entity (at least Fig. 3; eg. domainB adjacent to domainA via inter-domain Link).
As per Claim 32. The method of claim 1, wherein the first data flow model includes a path gradient graph (PGG) model (at least Fig. 1, pages 2, 6-8).
As per Claim 33. The method of claim 1, wherein selectively updating the first data flow model comprises: adding a virtual link to one or more flows that are identified to have a flow rate that differs from an expected flow rate using a current iteration of the first data flow model (at least pages 4-8; Inaccuracy Localization; detecting model inaccuracies (e.g., significantly higher delay than expected for the observed traffic load) in a group of paths; correlation of their routes through the domains can lead to finding a common set of segments, either domains or inter-domain links, that could potentially hold the source of the inaccuracy. Once some segment(s) have been identified, re-routing of those affected paths could be performed to avoid them; inaccuracies are observed in only one path for high loads. By analyzing the models of every segment and computing how likely it is that each segment introduced such inaccuracy the most reasonable segment can be selected. With this narrower identification, more precise and proper reconfiguration actions can be taken).
Claims 14-27, 29-30 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-13 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, in substance, that Tabatabaeimehr does not disclose the newly added limitation to the independent claims. However, see the above revised mapping in the rejection for the added limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Tabatabaeimehr discloses finding inaccuracies of measurements using probes (at least Fig. 3; page 3, 9; detection of the source of the inaccuracy; updated periodically using active probes).
Regarding the Bharadwaj reference not being cited on the Final Rejection accompanying 892, the 892 mailed 4/30/25 has the reference cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443