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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are pending.
Claims 8 and 18 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pg. 7-9, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
The allowable subject matter indicated in the previous office action has been withdrawn in view of updated search results [Please see the detailed rejection].
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitation “…send an end of packet (EOP) marker from the internal flow traffic controller to the overloaded processing code, wherein the overloaded processing code is configured to send queued packets for the subject flow to the target processing core followed by the EOP marker…”
The specification does not disclose, teach or suggest this subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite the limitation:
“…send an end of packet (EOP) marker from the internal flow traffic controller to the overloaded processing code, wherein the overloaded processing code is configured to send queued packets for the subject flow to the target processing core followed by the EOP marker…”
Applicant’s original specification discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
616
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
230
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At best, the specification teaches implementing a procedure for maintaining packet order using an end of packet marker. In this case, the source core sends the EOP marker after the last queued packet to the target processing core. Internal Flow traffic controller is a separate component than the source and target processing cores, see fig. 1-3 and fig. 5.
The specification fails to provide sufficient details on how the internal flow traffic controller sends the EOP from the internal flow traffic controller to the overloaded processing core, and then overloaded processing core sending queued packets to the target processing core followed by the EOP marker. In the specification and fig. 5, the source core C1 is sending the EOP marker to the destination core C2 after the last queued packet, not the flow traffic controller. The flow traffic controller is sending migration message to the overloaded processing core.
The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, applies to all claims including original claims that are part of the disclosure as filed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1170. As stated by the Federal Circuit, "[a]lthough many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement, certain claims may not." Id. at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1170-71; see also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-46, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1730-33 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1405-06 (Fed. Cir. 1997)("The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention."). Problems satisfying the written description requirement for original claims often occur when claim language is generic or functional, or both. Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the applicant [inventor] has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant [inventor] has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.").
For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349-50, 94 USPQ2d at 1171 ("[A]n adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries.") (citing Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1405-06); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed); Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1170, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting the argument that "only similar language in the specification or original claims is necessary to satisfy the written description requirement")
Therefore, the subject matter in the claim was not described in the specification with sufficient details that one skilled in the art can reasonably use and conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency on the independent claims.
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.
Claim 10 and 19 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 term “or beyond” in claim 10 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “beyond” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) and further in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2).
As per claim 1, Mehta discloses an internal flow traffic controller for redirecting packets with stateful flow awareness among a plurality of processing cores [fig. 1A: Controller 14, traffic nodes 10A-N, fig. 3], comprising:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions [fig. 1A]; and
a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the internal flow traffic controller [fig. 1A] to:
distribute new incoming flows of network traffic to one of the plurality of processing cores [fig. 3: step 72A-B, col. 8 L35-61];
measure a utilization score of each of the plurality of processing cores [fig. 3 step 79, fig. 7: step 230A-C, 231, col. 8 L35-61, col. 11 L50 to col. 12 L24];
identify, based on an imbalance among the plurality of processing cores, an overloaded processing core to rebalance, the overloaded processing core having a utilization score greater than a first threshold [fig. 3 step 79: Detect high utilization for traffic node 10A, fig. 7 step #231-232, col. 8 L35-61, col. 11 L50-67];
identify a subject flow to move from the overloaded processing core [fig. 7 step #234, col. 8 L35-61, col. 11 L63 to col. 12 L14, col. 17 L1-37];
identify a target processing core with a lowest utilization [fig. 3: step 84A-84B, fig. 7 step 236, col. 8 L35-61, col. 20 L1-67: Controller selects nodes 10B and 10C [whether new or pre-existing] which can offload some of the load from the overloaded traffic node] based on utilization reports received from the traffic nodes]; and
migrate processing of the subject flow from the overloaded processing core to the target processing core [fig. 3: step #84A-94, fig. 7 step 236, 240, col. 8 L35-61, col. 21 L5-67, col. 20 L33-67],
wherein the overloaded processing core is configured to send queued packets for the subject flow to the target processing core col. 11 L50-67: queue for storing received packets, col. 9 L2-42: forwarding packets based on migrated entries in FDT table];
update a flow table to assign new packets to the target processing core [fig. 3, fig. 7 step #246, col. 9 L7-58, col. 11 L18-36, col. 17 L1-67, col. 20 L13-25: update FDT, col. 21 L40-67, col. 22 L11-31].
However, Mehta does not explicitly teach the overloaded processing core having a deviation from an average utilization score of the plurality of processing cores that is greater than a second threshold and wherein to migrate processing of the subject flow from the overloaded processing core to the target processing core, the processor is configured to:
send an end of packet (EOP) marker from the internal flow traffic controller to the overloaded processing core, which sends it to the target processing node after last queued packet is sent.
Schantz discloses identifying overloaded processing core having a deviation from an average utilization score of the plurality of processing cores that is greater than a second threshold [fig. 3 step 302, 304, [0016], [0031-0035]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta in view of Schantz in order to calculate deviation of the processing core and compare it to the average utilization threshold of the processing cores.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because the standard deviation is used to indicate how evenly the processors are being utilized based on their utilization percentages in order to make a decision on whether any adjustments need to be made to the processing core, i.e. rebalance the processors [Schantz: 0031-0034].
Mehta-Schantz does not teach wherein to migrate processing of the subject flow from the overloaded processing core to the target processing core, the processor is configured to: send an end of packet (EOP) marker from the internal flow traffic controller to the overloaded processing core, which sends it to the target processing node after last queued packet is sent.
Fujinami teaches a process wherein after sending the last packet to the communication apparatus, the processing section subsequently sends an end marker packet (a termination notice packet) indicating the termination of packet forwarding to the communication apparatus [fig. 4 S1-7, S1-8, fig. 22 S5-8, fig. 24 S7-10, S7-11, col. 13 L54 to col. 14 L3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Mehta-Schantz in view of Fujinami in order to send an end of packet (EOP) marker from the internal flow traffic control to the overloaded processing core which then sends it to the target processing node after last packet is sent.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because the end marker packet acts as a termination notice indicating the termination of packet forwarding or the termination of the communication session or flow [Fujinami: col. 13 L54 to col. 14 L3].
As per claim 2, Mehta discloses the internal flow traffic controller of claim 1, wherein to distribute new incoming flows of network traffic to one of the plurality of processing cores, the processor is configured to select a processing core based on the utilization score of each of the plurality of processing cores [Mehta: col. 20 L42 to col. 21 L5: select traffic nodes based on utilization reports, col. 11 L50 to col. 12 L2: Load monitor monitors the load experienced by the traffic nodes 10, by monitoring utilization, latency, RTT, queue depth, etc., col. 17 L1-23, col. 20L42-61: Controller selects nodes 10B and 10C [whether new or pre-existing] which can offload some of the load from the overloaded traffic node] based on utilization reports received from the traffic nodes].
As per claim 10, Mehta discloses the internal flow traffic controller of claim 1, wherein the flows of network traffic are for a packet forwarding node of a 5G network or beyond [Mehta: fig. 1A, col. 5 L50-64].
As per claims 11-12, 19-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-2, 10. Therefore, claims 11-12, 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-2, 10.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2025/0321851 A1).
As per claim 3, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami discloses the internal flow traffic controller of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami does not wherein the utilization score is an estimate of a utilization metric over a first period of time, wherein the processor is configured to adjust a second utilization score for a second period of time based on a difference between the estimate of the utilization metric for the first period of time and an actual utilization metric measured during the first period of time.
Wu explicitly teaches the utilization score is an estimate of a utilization metric over a first period of time [0074-0078], wherein the processor is configured to adjust a second utilization score for a second period of time based on a difference between the estimate of the utilization metric for the first period of time and an actual utilization metric measured during the first period of time [[0074-0081]: The server determines corresponding estimated load values when actual values of the processor core are 80%, 70%...20% and 10%, for example, respectively 81%, 78%...28% and 18%. Then the server determines corresponding errors between actual and estimated to be 1%, 11% and 40%, 80%. The errors are then used to correct future estimated values based on errors, see [0109-0110]: The server inputs N estimated load values into the error function to obtain errors and corrects the N estimated load values based on the errors].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami in view of Wu in order to determine the errors between estimated load values and actual load values and use the errors to adjust or correct the future load values.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved approximation algorithm used to calculate and estimate the load values corresponding to processing cores in order to accurately assign tasks to plurality of processing cores.
As per claim 13, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claims 13 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2) and further in view of Mowat et al. (US 2022/0038376 A1).
As per claim 4, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami discloses the controller of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami does not disclose wherein to identify the subject flow to move from the overloaded processing core, the processor is configured to: measure a normalized flow rate for each flow assigned to the overloaded processing core; and select a flow having a greatest normalized flow rate as the subject flow.
Mowat teaches wherein to identify the subject flow to move from the overloaded processing core, the processor is configured to: measure a normalized flow rate for each flow assigned to the overloaded processing core; and select a flow having a greatest normalized flow rate as the subject flow [fig. 2: step #255, 270, [0036], [0047-0048]: A periodic determination of packet/flow rates and core loads is made and then compared to threshold. When packet flow exceeds predetermined threshold, it is determined if reassigning flow to another lowest loaded worker node would cause its load to exceed, if not, flow is selected and reassigned to another node with lowest load].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami in view of Mowat in order to identify the subject flow to move from the overloaded processing core based on the flow rates.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have improved balancing of processing across the cores [Mofat: 0049].
As per claim 14, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claims 14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2) in view of Mowat et al. (US 2022/0038376 A1) and further in view of Torretta et al. (US 12,388,758 B1).
As per claim 5, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami-Mowat discloses the controller of claim 4 as set forth above.
However, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami-Mowat does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the normalized flow rate for the subject flow by an adjustment factor after migrating the subject flow.
Torreta, from the same field of endeavor teaches reducing the normalized flow rate for the flow by an adjustment factor [Fig. 6: Recommended rate limit parameters, input flows are rate limit to shaped flows, fig. 8, col. 24 L46 to col. 25 L67].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami-Mowat in view of Torreta in order to reduce the flow rates for the flow by an adjustment factor.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because rate limiting techniques help mitigate impacts of unexpectedly high sustained rates of legitimate traffic and improve overall performance [Torreta: col. 1 L5-25, col. 2 L54-58].
As per claim 6, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami-Mowat-Torreta discloses the controller of claim 5 as set forth above, wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the adjustment factor over a plurality of maintenance cycles [Torreta: col. 3 L2-017: Different rate limiting policies or rules is implemented dynamically, e.g. in response to configuration of new [maintenance cycles] or additional nodes, col. 13 L17-38: the specific rate limits are provided as parameters, col. 14 L11-20: selecting automatically various tunable parameters over time]. Same rationale as in claim 5 applies.
As per claim 15-16, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 5-6. Therefore, claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 5-6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) and further in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2) in view of Chapweske et al. (US 8,144,632 B1).
As per claim 7, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami discloses the internal flow traffic controller of claim 1 as set forth above.
However, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami do not teach estimate an end time for each flow assigned to the overloaded processing core; and select a flow having a current age that is less than a threshold percentage of the estimated end time for the flow as the subject flow.
Chapweske teaches estimating an end time for each flow assigned to the processing core and selecting a flow having a current age that is less than a threshold percentage of the estimated end time for the flow as the subject flow [col. 42 L6-67: select which requests to forward based on TTL. For example request with TTL of 0.4 sec and request with TTL of 0.7 sec, in this case, request with TTL of 0.4 sec is forwarded first, because 0.4 is less than 0.7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami in view of Chapweske in order to select a flow having an age that is less than other flows.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because this would have prioritized processing of the flow or requests with smaller TTL’ s [i.e. less time remaining in their TTL] [Chapweske: col. 42 L6-38].
As per claim 17, it does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 7. Therefore, claims 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al. (US 9,231,871 B2) in view of Schantz (US 2005/0155032 A1) in view of Fujinami (US 10,609,157 B2) and further in view of Calvignac et al. (US 7,327,759 B2).
As per claim 9, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami teaches the internal flow traffic controller of claim 1 as set forth above. Fujinami further teaches a process wherein after sending the last packet to the communication apparatus, the processing section subsequently sends an end marker packet (a termination notice packet) indicating the termination of packet forwarding to the communication apparatus [fig. 4 S1-7, S1-8, fig. 22 S5-8, fig. 24 S7-10, S7-11, col. 13 L54 to col. 14 L3]. See Rational in claim 1.
However, Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami does not teach wherein the target processing core is configured to queue the new packets from the internal flow traffic controller until the EOP marker is received from the overloaded processing core when packet order preservation is enabled.
Calvignac teaches the process of preserving the packet order or sequence by using an input buffer for receiving frames for processing [col. 1 L44 to col. 2 L16].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehta-Schantz-Fujinami in view of Calvignac in order to queue the new packets from the internal flow traffic controller until the EOP marker is received from the overloaded processing code when the packet order preservation is enabled.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled preserving the sequence in which multiple data frames or packets flows are transmitted to processing functions [Calvignac: col. 1 L66 to col. 2 L5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights