DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/321,825 filed on 5/23/2023. The amendment presented on 1/14/2026, which cancels claims 2 and 15, amends claims 1, 13, and 16-20, and adds new claims 21-22, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Title "PACKET TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE FOR COMMUNICATING BETWEEN NODES” has been considered and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 5, the phrase “the network device” should be corrected as –the communication device-- for clear understanding of the claim. Similar correction should be made for claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14, and 16-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 3, 10-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (hereinafter Ramamurthy)(US 2020/0267114) in view of Kommula et al. (hereinafter Kommula)(US 2019/0230025), and further in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen)(US 2023/0370891).
Regarding claim 1, Ramamurthy teaches as follows:
A communication device (interpreted as the CE device 18 in figure 1 and the network device 200 in figure 2), comprising:
at least one processor; and one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store instructions for execution by the at least one processor (the network device comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, see, ¶ [0009])(CE device 18 may represent a router, switch, real or virtual server, or other suitable network device capable of forwarding network traffic and performing SLA measurements, see, ¶ [0018]), the instructions instruct the at least one processor to cause the network device to:
obtain a first packet (interpreted as a service request)(network device 200 receives a packet via one of inbound links 258, see, ¶ [0045] and figure 2); and
select, based on a network quality condition (interpreted as SLA requirement) corresponding to the first packet (The users may define desired levels for one or more of the parameters for the QoE that the users expect in service contracts, e.g., service level agreements (SLAs), with the service provider, see, ¶ [0025])(Therefore, the packet received from the users via inbound link inherently identifies the SLA requirement), a first physical interface from at least two physical interfaces to send the first packet, wherein a network quality parameter (interpreted as the SLA measurement) of the first physical interface corresponds to the network quality condition (CE device 18 may receive the probe packet replies 24 from endpoints 10A and 10C, respectively, and determines which of WAN links 19 to endpoints 10A and 10C meets the SLA requirements. For example, CE device 18 may determine from probe packet 22B and probe packet reply 24B that the latency of the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10C meets the latency requirement of a given SLA. CE device 18 may also determine from probe packet 22A and probe packet reply 24A that the latency of the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10A does not meet the latency requirement of the given SLA, see, ¶ [0032]).
Ramamurthy further teaches the physical interfaces and logical interfaces as follows:
Forwarding engine 206 is associated with one or more of interface cards 232A-232N (“IFCs 232”) that receive packets via inbound links 258A-258N (“inbound links 258”) and send packets via outbound links 260A-260N (“outbound links 260”). IFCs 232 are typically coupled to links 258, 260 via a number of interface ports. Interfaces for inbound links 258 and outbound links 260 may represent physical interfaces, logical interfaces, or some combination thereof. Interfaces for links 258, 260 may represent local interfaces of network device 200 for WAN links to endpoints 10 of FIG. 1 (see, ¶ [0040] and figure 2).
Ramamurthy does not teach the logical interface aggregating multiple physical interfaces.
Kommula teaches as follows:
Link aggregating group (LAG) methods can be implemented using a link aggregation control protocol (LACP) to bundle multiple pNICs (equivalent to applicant’s physical interfaces) together into a LAG. A dvport can be bound to the LAG (and, thus, to multiple pNICs), and it is presented as a single virtual network interface card (vNIC)(equivalent to applicant’s logical interface) available for use by applications executing in a VM. In such LAG methods, different pNICs of a LAG can be connected to separate physical network switches (e.g., ToR switches 106a, 106b, 216, 218 of FIG. 2), and doing so enables creating high-available networks with redundant paths between any two hosts. Since multiple pNICs can be bundled together using LAG, a single dvport can achieve an effective throughput of all the pNICs' maximum capacities combined (see, ¶ [0021] and figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy with Kommula to include the link aggregation control protocol (LACP) bundling multiple physical interfaces together into a link aggregating group (LAG) in order to create high-available networks with redundant paths.
Ramamurthy teaches the network quality condition (interpreted as SLA requirement) as presented above but dos not teach the SLA requirement comprising the network slice identifier.
Wen teaches as follows:
After receiving the network slice identifier and the network slice parameter, the network controller can perform path calculation of the SR tunnel according to the network slice parameters (e.g., the slice SLA requirements) and based on the network slice identifier and the network slice topology information acquired in advance according to the information reported by each bearer network device (see, ¶ [0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula with Wen to include the network slice in the slice SLA requirements in order to efficiently specify SLA requirements for each network slice.
Regarding claim 3, Ramamurthy teaches as follows:
Wherein the first packet comprises the network quality condition (interpreted as the SLA requirement), a network quality identifier is set for the first physical interface, and the network quality identifier corresponds to the network quality parameter (interpreted as the SLA measurement)(In response to performing the SLA measurement, i.e., determining that the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10C meets the latency requirements of the SLA. CE device 18 may specify the IP address for endpoint 10C as the primary IP address and the IP address for endpoint 10A as a secondary IP address. In this way, client devices 16 may use the IP address of endpoint 10C to access the hosted application via WAN link 19B that meets or best satisfies the SLA parameters, see, ¶ [0033] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ramamurthy teaches as follows:
Obtaining, by the first communication device, a second packet, wherein the second packet does not comprise the network quality condition; and selecting, by the first communication device, a third physical interface from the at least two physical interfaces corresponding to the logical interface to send the second packet, wherein a network quality parameter of the third physical interface does not correspond to the network quality condition (without knowledge of the SLA requirements, DNS load balancer 8 may return a DNS response 20 with the IP address for endpoint 10A defined as the primary IP address, which causes the client device to connect to endpoint 10A having a network path to CE device 18 that does not meet the given SLA requirement or is otherwise less preferable than the network path from endpoint 10C to CE device 18 (see, ¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Ramamurthy teaches all limitations as presented above except for the well-known destination address.
Kommula teaches as follows:
The prober sends probe messages that include destination addresses (e.g., internet protocol (IP) addresses, media access control (MAC) addresses, etc.) of destination devices (see, ¶ [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen to include determining an outbound logical interface based on the destination address of the packet in order to efficiently forward the packet to the destination device.
Regarding claim 21, Ramamurthy teaches the SLA requirement as presented above which is equivalent to applicant’s network quality condition.
Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach the SLA identifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen to include a identifier for the SLA in order to efficiently indicate a specific SLA between multiple SLAs.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (hereinafter Ramamurthy)(US 2020/0267114) in view of Kommula et al. (hereinafter Kommula)(US 2019/0230025) and Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen)(US 2023/0370891), and further in view of Tanaka (US 2021/0274508).
Regarding claim 4, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen teaches all limitations as presented above except for determining the network quality condition based on characteristic information of the first packet.
Tanaka teaches as follows:
the NMS server determines the minimum expected slice transmission rate that meets the requested quality of each piece of traffic in consideration of the characteristics of each piece of traffic (for example, the packet arrival interval, arrival packet size, and maximum acceptable latency)(see, ¶ [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen with Tanaka to include determining transmission rate in consideration of the characteristics of each piece of traffic as taught by Tanaka in order to efficiently optimize current transmission capacity.
Claims 5-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (hereinafter Ramamurthy)(US 2020/0267114) in view of Kommula et al. (hereinafter Kommula)(US 2019/0230025) and Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen)(US 2023/0370891), and further in view of Bhattacharya (US 8,897,140).
Regarding claims 5 and 8-9, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen teaches all limitations as presented above except for advertising the network quality parameter.
Bhattacharya teaches as follows:
The time delay can be advertised to a second network element with a type length value element. When the network has open shortest path first-traffic engineering (OSPF-TE) or intermediate system to intermediate system-traffic engineering (ISIS-TE) protocol enabled, the normalized congestion indicator and queue draining delay parameters can be advertised as measured TE link metric(s) to OSPF or IS-IS neighbors. The measured TE link metric(s) can be advertised in a sub-TLV(s) of a new optional TLV by extending OSPFv2 TE-LSA and/or OSPFv3's TE-LSA. Further, IS-IS's TE TLVs can also be extended to carry the measured TE link metric(s) in sub-TLV(s) of a new optional TLV (see, col. 8, lines 37-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen with Bhattacharya to include advertising measured link metrics using the well-known the IS-IS protocol and the OSPF protocol as taught by Bhattacharya in order to efficiently share link metrics.
Regarding claim 6, Ramamurthy teaches the transmission delay as the network quality parameter as follows:
CE device 18 may determine which of the WAN links 19 has better performance metrics (equivalent to applicant’s network quality parameter). For example, WAN link 19B between CE device 18 and endpoint 10C may have a lower latency (equivalent to applicant’s transmission delay) than WAN link 19A between CE device 18 and endpoint 10A. In this example, CE device 18 may define the IP address for endpoint 10C as the primary IP address because the latency for WAN link 19B is lower than the latency of WAN link 19A (see, ¶ [0034] and figure 1).
Therefore, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula, Wen, and Bhattacharya and teaches all limitations as presented above.
Regarding claim 7, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen teaches all limitations as presented above except for the bandwidth as the network quality parameter.
Bhattacharya teaches as follows:
The control modules 400a, 400b execute software, perform processes, execute algorithms, etc. to control configurable features of a network, such as automating discovery of network elements, capacity on links, port availability on the network elements, connectivity between ports; dissemination of topology and bandwidth information between the network elements; calculation and creation of paths for connections (see, col. 11, lines 13-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen with Bhattacharya to include measuring bandwidth information between network elements as taught by Bhattacharya in order to efficiently select a path (a physical interface) based on available bandwidth.
Regarding claim 16, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen teaches similar limitations as presented above in the rejection for claims 1 and 5.
Ramamurthy further teaches the logical interfaces as follows:
Forwarding engine 206 is associated with one or more of interface cards 232A-232N (“IFCs 232”) that receive packets via inbound links 258A-258N (“inbound links 258”) and send packets via outbound links 260A-260N (“outbound links 260”). IFCs 232 are typically coupled to links 258, 260 via a number of interface ports. Interfaces for inbound links 258 and outbound links 260 may represent physical interfaces, logical interfaces, or some combination thereof (see, ¶ [0040] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula, Wen, and Bhattacharya to include the well-known logical interface in order to efficiently aggregate multiple physical interfaces between a transmitting network device and a receiving network device.
Regarding claim 17, Ramamurthy teaches the SLA requirement as presented above which is equivalent to applicant’s network quality condition.
Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach the SLA identifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula, Wen, and Bhattacharya to include a identifier for the SLA in order to efficiently indicate a specific SLA between multiple SLAs.
Regarding claim 18, Ramamurthy teaches as follows:
Wherein the first packet comprises the network quality condition (interpreted as the SLA requirement), a network quality identifier is set for the first physical interface, and the network quality identifier corresponds to the network quality parameter (interpreted as the SLA measurement)(In response to performing the SLA measurement, i.e., determining that the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10C meets the latency requirements of the SLA. CE device 18 may specify the IP address for endpoint 10C as the primary IP address and the IP address for endpoint 10A as a secondary IP address. In this way, client devices 16 may use the IP address of endpoint 10C to access the hosted application via WAN link 19B that meets or best satisfies the SLA parameters, see, ¶ [0033] and figure 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (hereinafter Ramamurthy)(US 2020/0267114) in view of Kommula et al. (hereinafter Kommula)(US 2019/0230025) and Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen)(US 2023/0370891), and further in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen)(US 2016/0210128).
Regarding claim 12, Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen teaches all limitations as presented above except for the trunk interface.
Chen teaches as follows:
The service may be executed by using an interface of the network apparatus. The interface may be a physical interface, or may be a logical interface. For example, the logical interface may be a trunk interface or a virtual local area network interface (VLAN interface)(see, ¶ [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Kommula and Wen with Chen to include the well-known trunk interface as the logical interface.
Claims 13-14, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (hereinafter Ramamurthy)(US 2020/0267114) in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen)(US 2023/0370891), and further in view of Liu (US 2008/0069032).
Regarding claim 13, Ramamurthy in view of Wen teaches similar limitations as presented above in the rejections for claim 1 except for updating the first packet to obtain a second packet.
Liu teaches as follows:
Dynamically change the packet length according to the actually measured transmission latency or RTT, to meet a certain transmission latency requirement (see, ¶ [0130]).
The examiner interpreted the second packet as the packet with changed packet length to meet the measured transmission latency with the second communication device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Wen with Liu to include dynamically changing the packet length to the actually measured transmission latency as taught by Liu in order to efficiently meet the latency requirement.
Regarding claim 14, Ramamurthy teaches as follows:
Receiving, by the first communication device, the network quality parameter of the logical interface sent by the second communication device (CE device 18 may receive the probe packet replies 24 from endpoints 10A and 10C, respectively, and determines which of WAN links 19 to endpoints 10A and 10C meets the SLA requirements. For example, CE device 18 may determine from probe packet 22B and probe packet reply 24B that the latency of the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10C meets the latency requirement of a given SLA. CE device 18 may also determine from probe packet 22A and probe packet reply 24A that the latency of the WAN link between CE device 18 and endpoint 10A does not meet the latency requirement of the given SLA, see, ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Ramamurthy in view of Wen and Liu teaches similar limitations as presented above in the rejections for claim 1.
Ramamurthy further teaches the logical interfaces as follows:
Forwarding engine 206 is associated with one or more of interface cards 232A-232N (“IFCs 232”) that receive packets via inbound links 258A-258N (“inbound links 258”) and send packets via outbound links 260A-260N (“outbound links 260”). IFCs 232 are typically coupled to links 258, 260 via a number of interface ports. Interfaces for inbound links 258 and outbound links 260 may represent physical interfaces, logical interfaces, or some combination thereof (see, ¶ [0040] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Wen and Liu to include the well-known logical interface in order to efficiently aggregate multiple physical interfaces between a transmitting network device and a receiving network device.
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Ramamurthy teaches the SLA requirement as presented above which is equivalent to applicant’s network quality condition.
Ramamurthy does not explicitly teach the SLA identifier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy in view of Wen and Liu to include a identifier for the SLA in order to efficiently indicate a specific SLA between multiple SLAs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights