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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it substantially repeats the claim language and is not in narrative form. Because the claim language is subject to change over the course of the application prosecution, the original abstract would very likely not be a concise narrative summary of the final state of the claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specification Objections
The Specification is objected to because the title recites “near real time” and it is unclear as how to determine what “near” and “real time” are since they are subjective and relative terms. Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is objected to because [0007] contains hyperlinks which should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is objected to because a period should be inserted after “high side” in [0042] on pg. 13 of the Specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
As per claim 1, it is objected to because “a software” should be “the software” in line 6, “and” should be deleted at the end of line 10, and “the connection” should be “a connection” in ll. 11. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 2-4, they are objected to by virtue of being dependent upon objected to claim 1 above using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Claim 1. A method, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
assigning the inbound request to an active thread (abstract idea mental process);
tracking a state of the connection using a directed acyclic group state machine (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
receiving an inbound request at a defined interface of a messaging router (generic computing components) within a software defined network (generic computing components);
transmitting a response to the inbound request;
generating an outbound request, for transmission into a software defined network, in accordance with the received inbound request using the active thread;
transmitting the generated outbound request to a node within the software defined network determined in accordance with the inbound request and a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network; and
allocating computing and memory resources (generic computing components) to reduce transformation time and provide real-time or near real-time processing of the inbound request.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
receiving an inbound request at a defined interface of a messaging router within a software defined network (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
transmitting a response to the inbound request (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information);
generating an outbound request, for transmission into a software defined network, in accordance with the received inbound request using the active thread (extra-solution activity of generating data/information);
transmitting the generated outbound request to a node within the software defined network determined in accordance with the inbound request and a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information); and
allocating computing and memory resources to reduce transformation time and provide real-time or near real-time processing of the inbound request (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, it is not apparent how reducing transformation time provides any sort of improvement. Moreover, it is unclear as how to define “real-time or near real-time” processing and how that results in any improvement. Finally, the language “to reduce” is future tense with merely an intention to reduce transformation time while not actually requiring the claim to operate having reduced transformation time).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a response to the transmitted request (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information); and
generating a secondary request for transmission to a second node within the software defined network, both the second node and secondary request determined in accordance with the inbound request, the tracked state, and the received response (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2 further comprising generating (extra-solution activity of generating data/information) and transmitting an updated response to the inbound request in accordance with the received response (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of generating an outbound request comprises generating a set of outbound requests in accordance with the received inbound request (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
As per claim 1, line 14 recites “real-time or near real-time” and it is not clear as how to interpret the aforementioned phrase because it is subjective and relative. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the language of claim 1 to read on the prior art references cited below.
As per claim 2, line 3 recites “a secondary request” and it is unclear as what the secondary request is secondary to. In other words, is the secondary request secondary to the inbound request or the outbound request? Furthermore, does “the received response” recited in line 5 refer to “a response” recited in line 2, or “a response” recited in claim 1, line 5? For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the language of claim 2 to read on the prior art references cited below.
As per claim 3, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 2 above using the same rationale.
As per claim 4, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 1 above using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnidge (US 7,039,691) in view of Yu et al. (US 2017/0300353) (hereinafter Yu) in view of Rune et al. (US 2017/0019914) (hereinafter Rune) in view of Thubert et al. (US 2007/0091811) (hereinafter Thubert).
As per claim 1, Turnidge primarily teaches the invention as claimed including:
receiving an inbound request at a messaging router (fig. 1-2, blocks 104-106 receive a request at a web server);
assigning the inbound request to an active thread (col. 3, ll. 61-67 user request is received by an HTTP daemon thread for receiving, processing, and routing incoming requests and claim 36 state information includes thread information i.e., active thread);
transmitting a response to the inbound request (col. 2, ll. 11-20 construct responses to incoming requests and output replies to incoming queries);
generating an outbound request, for transmission, in accordance with the received inbound request using the active thread (col. 4, ll. 38-45 create HTTP thread which traffics incoming requests and outgoing replies constructed to return replies to the incoming requests);
transmitting the generated outbound request to a node determined in accordance with the inbound request (col. 2, ll. 22-41 receiving and transmitting requests and responses).
Turnidge does not explicitly teach:
a defined interface of a messaging router within a software defined network;
a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network;
tracking a state of the connection using a directed acyclic group state machine; and
allocating computing and memory resources to reduce transformation time and provide real-time or near real-time processing of the inbound request.
However, Yu teaches:
a defined interface of a messaging router within a software defined network ([0033] application program interfaces in a software defined network architecture and software defined network interfaces for forwarding device and [0053] communications interface with a software defined controller);
a priori knowledge of a topology of the software defined network ([0062] and [0107] software defined network controller maintains a topology and data of each communication path according to historical traffic statistics i.e., a priori knowledge to select a communication path for transmitting/receiving data).
Yu and Turnidge are both concerned with computer network traffic and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turnidge in view of Yu because it would provide for a policy management apparatus which can transfer location information of different communications nodes, bandwidth requirement information, and QoS requirement information to a software defined network controller. The software defined network controller can plan forwarding paths for the communications nodes in a unified manner, which meets a QoS requirement for communication and avoids a waste of physical link resources in a bearer network. Therefore, network running efficiency and resource utilization are improved, and further, communication QoS can be ensured after communications nodes across different data centers are deployed in cloudified data centers.
Turnidge in view of Yu does not explicitly teach:
tracking a state of the connection using a directed acyclic group state machine; and
allocating computing and memory resources to reduce transformation time and provide real-time or near real-time processing of the inbound request.
However, Rune teaches allocating computing and memory resources to reduce transformation time and provide real-time or near real-time processing of the inbound request ([0019] reduce access delay and end-to-end delay by proactively allocating resources to match an estimated transmission phase of periodic data traffic).
Rune and Turnidge are both concerned with computer network traffic and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune because it would provide for automatic synchronization with a transmission schedule of a device through observations and probing resource allocations, i.e. self-learning. In addition, by eliminating the need for scheduling requests and the need for transmission resource allocations, this can also reduce the energy consumption in the device and save further signaling resources.
Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune does not explicitly teach tracking a state of the connection using a directed acyclic group state machine.
However, Thubert teaches tracking a state of the connection using a directed acyclic group state machine ([0054] monitor link status via DAG and [0064] utilize the DAG to choose forwarding paths based on detected link traffic conditions).
Thubert and Turnidge are both concerned with computer network traffic and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune in view of Thubert because it would provide for a way that optimizes utilization of all available paths in a DAG toward a DAG destination, without the necessity of route recalculation that would require recalculation of the DAG and without the necessity of maintaining state information for a given path.
As per claim 4, Turnidge further teaches wherein the step of generating an outbound request comprises generating a set of outbound requests in accordance with the received inbound request (col. 4, ll. 38-45 traffic incoming requests and outgoing replies).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune in view of Thubert in view of Shalev et al. (US 2017/0187621) (hereinafter Shalev).
As per claim 2, Turnidge further teaches receiving a response to the transmitted request (col. 2, ll. 11-20 respond/reply to incoming request).
Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune in view of Thubert do not explicitly teach generating a secondary request for transmission to a second node within the software defined network, both the second node and secondary request determined in accordance with the inbound request, the tracked state, and the received response.
However, Shalev teaches generating a secondary request for transmission to a second node within the software defined network, both the second node and secondary request determined in accordance with the inbound request ([0144] the destination address is associated with incoming packets), the tracked state (abstract transport context includes a state of a connection with a destination on the network), and the received response ([0102] packet header includes information identifying source of response and destination for the response).
Shalev and Turnidge are both concerned with computer network traffic and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Turnidge in view of Yu in view of Rune in view of Thubert in view of Shalev because it would provide for reliable packet delivery and packet reordering, with reliability handled at a network adapter device and packet reordering handled by software on a host device. A Relaxed Reliable Datagram transport provides mechanisms to guarantee packet delivery across networks that may occasionally drop packets. A network adapter device configured to use the Relaxed Reliable Datagram transport may avoid buffering packets, instead delivering them to the host device as quickly as possible. The host device may then reorder the packets as needed. This may enable high performance computing on a low cost computing cluster by providing high bandwidth and low latency transfers across the cluster whereby clustering computing resources may provide better performance and scalability at lower costs.
As per claim 3, Turnidge further teaches generating and transmitting an updated response to the inbound request in accordance with the received response (col. 2, ll. 15-16 and 26-39 library of services to construct responses to incoming requests and multiple incoming requests and responses).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Gali et al. (US 2022/0286360) disclose a software defined network for global network state management.
Nee et al. (US 11,184,269) disclose collecting route-based traffic metrics in a service-oriented system.
Brown (US 2020/0067829) discloses intelligent selection of channel interfaces.
Jilani et al. (US 2017/0214608) disclose flow based virtual network function orchestration.
Chakrabarti et al. (US 2016/0028603) disclose data path performance measurements using test messages in a software defined network.
Kahn et al. (US 2015/0365537) disclose control plane charging in a software defined network.
Hoffmann (US 2016/0234104) disclose handling of signaling messages on a data plane of a software defined network.
Chambliss et al. (US 2004/0267916) disclose regulating resource request from clients.
Dobric et al. (US 2004/0136325) disclose hardware implementation of independent verification of network layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 January 13, 2026