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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/01/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose “…network accessible service exclusive of the provider network”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wang discloses that the system generates local policy for the site (see abstract). The local policy includes security policy and other policies are designed and optimized particular to that local site (refer to Col 3, Lines 6, Col 2, Lines 60-65). Furthermore, Wang discloses that the local policies be different from site to site (see Col 9, Lines 15-16), which emphasize the local policies are unique and exclusive to each particular local site.
Therefore, the references in combination do teach the alleged missing limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al hereinafter Wang (US 11,637,753) in view of Evans et al hereinafter Evans (US 2019/0036816)
Referring to Claim 1. Wang discloses a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processing resource, a request to modify a control related to a network accessible service in a software defined network (modify the policies, refer to Col 5, Lines 4-5Col 9, Lines 18-20); automatically accessing, by the processing resources, a performance standard associated with the network accessible service (obtain the current WAN link characteristics, refer to Col 9, Lines 20-25, characteristics includes SLA information, refer to Col 10, Lines 5-33); creating, by the processing resources, a communication path performance rule for the network accessible service to govern a provider network that provides access to the network accessible service (create local policy refer to Col 9, Lines 25-30, Lines 40-45); and creating, by the processing resources, a control rule including a security rule to govern the network accessible service exclusive of the provider network (creating local policy also includes the security rules, refer to Col 11, Lines 19-40, Col 4, Lines 30-40 and refer to Col 3, Lines 6, Col 2, Lines 60-65).
Evans, in analogous art, is introduced for expedite the prosecution, which demonstrate the well in the art features such as creating path performances rules as well as the control rules that govern the network accessible service (refer to par 0025 and 0026).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wang and Evans since Evans’ teaching would allow the system of Wang to improve reliability for network communication.
Referring to Claim 2. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 1, Wang discloses storing, by the processing resources, the control rule and the communication path performance rule as part of a control group for the network accessible service (rules such as security QoS and QoE are all part of global policies and Local Policies which are for network accessing services, refer to Col 4, Lines 35-45 and are stored, refer to Col 15, Lines 60-67, Col 19, Lines 15-20).
Referring to Claim 3. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 1, Wang discloses comparing, by the processing resources, a first performance with a communication path performance rule (compare the collected performance with the polices, refer to Col 8, Lines 50-67, Col 9, Lines 40-50, Col 19, Lines 50-67 at the first location/site/edge, refer to Col 5, Lines 10-30); and selecting, by the processing resources, a first communication path based on the comparison of the first performance with the communication path performance rule (select different paths based on policies, refer to Col 8, Lines 50- Col 9, Lines 21 Col 13, Lines 10-20 and Col 19, Lines 50-67).
Referring to Claim 4, Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 3, Wang discloses comparing, by the processing resources, a second performance with the communication path performance rule (compare the collected performance with the polices, refer to Col 8, Lines 50-67, Col 19, Lines 50-67 at the second location/site/edge, refer to Col 5, Lines 10-30); and selecting, by the processing resources, a second communication path based at least in part on the comparison of the second performance with the communication path performance rule (select different paths based on policies, refer to Col 8, Lines 50- Col 9, Lines 21, Col 13, Lines 10-20 and Col 19, Lines 50-67).
Referring to Claim 5. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the first communication path comprises a first provider network and the second communication path comprises a second provider network (different edge such as 108A-108C, refer to Col 8, Lines 15-20 and Col 7, Lines 19-50).
Referring to Claim 6. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the control rule is a security rule that is unrelated to the selected first communication path (security rules are different to path selection rules, refer to Col 4, Lines 30-50).
Referring to Claim 7. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 1, Wang discloses wherein the performance standard comprises at least one performance metric recommended by a provider of the network accessible service (standard from at least service orchestrator, Col 9, Lines 40-50).
Referring to Claim 8. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 7, Wang discloses wherein the performance standard further comprises one or more performance parameters selected from a group comprising a communication path bandwidth level, a communication path latency level, and a communication path jitter level (refer to Col 11, Lines 19-30, Col 19, Lines 25).
Referring to Claim 9. Wang and Evans disclosed the method of claim 1, Wang discloses wherein the performance standard associated with the network accessible service is accessed from a proxy service that includes both the actual name of the network accessible service and the performance standard corresponding to the network accessible service (destination information, and SLA refer to Col 19, Lines 5-51).
Referring to Claims 10 – 20, claims are rejected under similar rational as claims 1-10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAREN C TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3116. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 4pm.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on (571) 272-4036. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN C TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights