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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Iyer does not disclose:
determining session-level metrics across SD-WAN tunnels;
session-level throughput and loss metrics that are tied to SD-WAN sessions rather than generic link utilization; or
generating a session-level shape rate per tunnel and adjusting a forwarding load- balance weight per tunnel based on those session-level metrics.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Iyer does not disclose session-level metrics. However, this is not consistent with the claim language. The claim requires determining one or more metrics based on… session level throughput… and loss… though one or more tunnels. As such, the metrics do not need to be “session-level,” rather the metrics that are determined merely need to be based upon one or more session level throughput and loss.
Furthermore, Applicant’s interpretation of “session level” is overly narrow, and assumes elements not specifically recited by the claims. Generally, a “session” is merely a “time-limited interaction” between two or more communication devices or systems. However, the claims do not reference “sessions,” i.e. specific time-limited interactions, rather the claims identify “session level” which merely references these time-limited interactions.
As such, when the claims recite “session level throughput” or “session level loss,” Examiner interprets this simply as throughput per time or loss per time, i.e. “session level” merely indicates the data is measure over some unit of time rather than a gross value. As noted in the rejection, Iyer (¶0052) teaches a metric based upon a bandwidth of the SD-WAN network, wherein bandwidth is well-known as an amount of data transmitted over a given period of time, i.e. throughput over a session or a session level throughput.
Examiner therefore rejects Applicant’s interpretation of the claims, as there are no specific “sessions” which are being considered in the claims, rather session level data, i.e. data over a period of time. This simply means the data are not gross values or accumulated values.
Therefore Examiner respectfully disagree that:
Iyer needs to teach “session level” metrics. The claims recite determining metrics based on one or more session level throughput or loss, but the metrics themselves do not need to be session level.
Iyer does not session-level throughput and loss metrics that are tied to SD-WAN sessions rather than generic link utilization.Iyer teaches bandwidth, which is a session level throughput as it is the measurement of data transmitted (throughput) over a given period of time (session).
Iyer does not teach generating a session-level shape rate per tunnel and adjusting a forwarding load-balance weight per tunnel based on those session-level metrics.As noted above, “session level” is merely in reference to how the metric is applied (i.e. across the session or period of time) as such any rate, i.e. the shape rate, would be a session level value.
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.
2. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iyer et al. (US 20200259750 A1).
Claim 1 Iyer teaches a method comprising:
determining one or more metrics based on one or more Software-defined Wide Area Network (SDWAN) session level throughput and SDWAN session loss through one or more tunnels; (FIG. 3, block 306, ¶0052, determining whether the updated measurement of network bandwidth, i.e. a metric, is less than or greater than based on a stored network bandwidth measurement, i.e. a throughput, of an SD-WAN network)
generating a Quality of Service (QoS) SDWAN session level shape rate per tunnel based on the one or more metrics; (FIG. 3, ¶0052 and ¶0054, blocks 308 or 316, determining a new shaping rate based on the metric of the updated measurement being greater or not; Examiner interprets that the “shape rate per tunnel” as being the same as a shape rate for each tunnel, and therefore, as the shape rate is for a given connection, i.e. tunnel, the new shaping rate would be the shape rate per tunnel) and
dynamically adjusting an SDWAN forwarding load-balance weight for each of the one or more tunnels based on the QoS SDWAN session level shape rate. (FIG. 3, ¶0052 and ¶0054, blocks 310 or 320, adjusting the shaping rate the shaping rate based on the previously determined shaping rate; Examiner interprets the “forward load-balance weight” as new shaping rate, as the new shaping rate is used to balance forwarding data based on demand and bandwidth available)
Claim 2 Iyer teaches Claim 1, and further teaches measuring the one or more metrics at a subsequent time after adjusting the SDWAN session level shape rate and the SDWAN forwarding load-balance weight; (FIG. 3, ¶0047, wherein the measurement is part of an iterative flow process, as such is continually measured over time, i.e. after adjustment) and
based on a change of the one or more metrics measured, further adjusting the SDWAN session level shape rate and the SDWAN forwarding load-balance weight in real-time. (FIG. 3, ¶0052 and ¶0054, wherein the adjustments are based on updates, i.e. real time)
Claim 3 Iyer teaches Claim 1, and further teaches determining that a first transport link has local Wide Area Network (WAN) (FIG. 1, a regional WAN 150, ¶0041) QoS congestion based on the one or more metrics, (FIG. 3, step 314, ¶0053, determining the bandwidth demand is greater than the current shaping rate, i.e. the link is having congestion) the first transport link having a first weight, monitored by a path monitor service; (¶0053, wherein shaping rate comprises a first weight, wherein the process comprises a path monitor service)
determining that a second transport link is underutilized based on the one or more metrics (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0052, determining the bandwidth demand is lesser than the current shaping rate, i.e. the link is underutilized) monitored by the path monitor service, (See above) the second transport link having a second weight; (¶0053, wherein shaping rate comprises a second weight)
dynamically adjusting the SDWAN forwarding load-balance weight for the first transport link and the second transport link by modifying the first weight and the second weight in accordance with the one or more metrics monitored by the path monitor service; (FIG. 3, step 312 and 320, ¶0052-¶0054, adjusting the shaping rate based on the determined bandwidths and modifying the link shaper rates) and
rerouting traffic from the first transport link to the second transport link based on QoS requirements. (¶0047, shaping traffic flow according the to process of FIG. 3, i.e. the adjusted weights/shaper rates)
Claim 4 Iyer teaches Claim 1, and further teaches determining, at a first time, a first utilization of a first transport link and a second utilization of a second transport link (FIG. 3, step 314, ¶0053, step 306, ¶0052, determining the bandwidth demand; FIG. 6, ¶0059, Examiner notes that the processes of FIG. 3 is performed across multiple transport links simultaneously) based on the one or more metrics monitored by a path monitor service, (See 112(b), unclear how this limitation modifies the claims as the path monitor service is not a claim element) wherein at least one of the first transport link and the second transport link is a dynamic link with variable transport bandwidth capacity; (¶0052-¶0054, wherein the transport link is dynamic and can have its bandwidth capacity adjusted)
dynamically assigning a first weight for the first transport link and a second weight for the second transport link; (FIG. 3, step 312 and 320, ¶0052-¶0054, adjusting the shaping rate based on the determined bandwidths and modifying the link shaper rates)
determining, at a second time, (¶0047, wherein the process is iterative happening at recurrent different times) that a transport bandwidth capacity of the second transport link has increased; (FIG. 3, step 306, ¶0052, determining the bandwidth demand is lesser than the current shaping rate, i.e. the link is underutilized)
based on the determination, dynamically increasing the second weight and decreasing the first weight; (FIG. 3, step 312, ¶0052-¶0054, adjusting the shaping rate based on the determined bandwidths and modifying the link shaper rates) and
routing traffic along the first transport link in accordance with the first weight and the second transport link in accordance with the second weight. (¶0047, shaping traffic flow according the to process of FIG. 3, i.e. the adjusted weights/shaper rates)
Claims 8-11 are taught by Iyer as described for Claims 1-4.
Claims 15-18 are taught by Iyer as described for Claims 1-4.
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.
3. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 20200259750 A1) in view of Khan et al. (US 20170279710 A1).
Claim 5 Iyer teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach adjusting the SDWAN forwarding load-balance weight for each of the one or more tunnels by a Transport Locator (TLOC) Session weight value, the TLOC session weight value based on the one or more metrics, wherein the one or more metrics include measured bandwidth capacity; and forwarding the TLOC session weight value to a SDWAN TLOC forwarding hashing table which dynamically distributes and load balances traffic flows over multiple tunnels based on available bandwidth.
From a related technology, Khan adjusting a forwarding load-balance weight for each of the one or more tunnels by a Transport Locator (TLOC) Session weight value, the TLOC session weight value based on the one or more metrics wherein the one or more metrics include measured bandwidth capacity; (FIG. 6, ¶0101-¶0102, coming the TLOC value to a routing, i.e. forwarding hashing, table, ¶0040) and
forwarding the TLOC session weight value to a SDWAN TLOC forwarding hashing table (FIG. 6, ¶0101-¶0102, coming the TLOC value to a routing, i.e. forwarding hashing, table, ¶0040) which dynamically distributes and load balances traffic flows over multiple tunnels based on available bandwidth. (Examiner notes that this is an intended use of the hashing table, the claim only covers forwarding the value, however, the hashing table has not been recited as a claim element nor it distributing traffic flows)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iyer to incorporate the teachings of Khan in order to adopt well-known load balancing techniques to improved network efficiency.
Claim 12 and 19 are rejected by Iyer as described for Claim 5.
4. Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 20200259750 A1) in view of Shanks et al. (US 20170180155 A1).
Claim 6 Iyer teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more metrics are further determined based on multiple tunnel bandwidth usage and local WAN loss ratio.
From a related technology, Shanks teaches one or more metrics are further determined based on multiple tunnel bandwidth usage and local WAN loss ratio. (¶0080, wherein one or more performance measures are based on bandwidth or packet drop rate)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iyer to incorporate the metrics determined by Shanks to more effectively analyze network resources to improve utilization.
Claim 7 Iyer teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach monitoring traffic throughput, Local/WAN drop ratio, and congestion state. (¶0080, wherein one or more performance measures are based on bandwidth, packet drop rate, and latency)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Iyer to incorporate the metrics determined by Shanks to more effectively analyze network resources to improve utilization.
Claims 13-14 are taught by Iyer in view of Shanks as described for Claims 6-7.
Claim 20 is taught by Iyer in view of Shanks as described for Claim 6.
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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444