DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The response of 05/21/26 was received and considered. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. Claim 20 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/26, with respect to claims 1, 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting data, analyzing it against a rule, and acting on the result. The newly added claim amendments do not add “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Quality of Service (QoS) routing is a highly conventional in network architecture. Substituting “Quality of Trust (QoT)” for QoS, without claiming a novel hardware arrangement or specific, unconventional algorithmic improvements to the network hardware, is viewed as merely applying routine functions. The structural analysis reveals the rejected claims map broadly to rules-based routing. The claims recite the routing logic functionality without specifying how the QoT levels are technologically extracted, computed or integrated into the network protocols beyond generic “receiving” and “obtaining”. The claims would need to be amended to incorporate the highly specific technical mechanisms found in the specification to prove a concrete improvement to computer network functionality. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The fragmentation and multipath routing limitations found in these claims provide the necessary structural and technological features to provide an inventive concept.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/26 with respect to Morris have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Morris discloses a system for routing data packets based on security policies tied to geospatial information. In Morris, data packets carry security requirements (e.g. clearance levels or avoidance policies), and network nodes possess security attributes based on their physical locations (e.g. a router in a secure facility vs. a router in an untrusted foreign territory). While Morris uses geospatial security attributes rather than explicitly using the coined term “Quality of Trust (QoT) level” the two concepts are structurally and functionally equivalent. Both represents a quantifiable metric of a network node’s trustworthiness used to execute a conditional routing policy. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to generalize Morris’ geographic based trust metric into a general, numerical “Quality of Trust” level, as doing so merely applies a known routing algorithm (policy-based routing) using a broader, administratively defined trust variable. However, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 1-6, 9-14, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is explicitly directed to a "method of data transmission." Therefore, it satisfies the initial requirement of being a statutory process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
The core of the claim involves:
Receiving information (a data packet with a trust level and forwarding policy). Obtaining other information (a second trust level). Applying a rule to that information (sending the packet based on a comparison/evaluation of the two trust levels according to the policy). Conclusion: This claim is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, it falls into the categories of "mental processes" (evaluating logical rules) or "information processing" (collecting, analyzing, and outputting data based on conditional rules). A human could theoretically evaluate these "trust levels" and "policies" mentally or with pen and paper to decide where information should go.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
The claim introduces several physical/computational elements: "first network device," "terminal device," "data packet," and "second network device." However, these are highly generic computer and network components. The claim does not explain how the "quality of trust" is technically determined or how this specific method improves the functioning of the network itself (e.g., reducing latency, preventing bandwidth bottlenecks, or a specific technical mechanism for mitigating cyberattacks). Merely using a generic computer network as a tool to execute an abstract rule (forwarding data based on trust policies) does not satisfy this prong. Conclusion: The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It reads like a broad functional result rather than a specific technical solution.
Step 2B: Does the claim provide an "inventive concept"?
The steps recited—receiving a data packet, obtaining data (a trust level) about a network device, and sending a data packet—are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field of networking. Conclusion: There is no inventive concept here. The claim simply applies a generic abstract rule to a generic network environment using standard data transmission functions.
As per claims 2-6: These claims add the mechanics of how the trust scores are negotiated, verified, and distributed across the network. They merely automate the distribution of the abstract policy parameters using conventional network signaling.
As per claim 9: Step 1: Statutory Category
Like the previous claim, this claim is explicitly directed to a "method of data transmission." Conclusion: It satisfies the initial requirement of being a statutory process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a judicial exception? Analysis:
Obtaining information (a trust level for the service and a forwarding policy). Obtaining more information (a trust level for the destination network device). Executing a rule (sending the packet based on those trust levels and the policy). Conclusion: The claim is directed to an abstract idea. It represents a fundamental concept of information processing and conditional logic (if/then rules based on trust parameters). Deciding whether to send a package to a specific recipient based on how much you trust the service and the recipient is a mental process that humans do every day, merely mapped here onto a digital data packet.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
The physical and computational elements recited are a "terminal device," a "first network device," and a "data packet." These are generic, high-level computer network components.
The claim does not recite any specific technical implementation of how the terminal device physically measures, calculates, or authenticates these "quality of trust levels." It does not describe a technical improvement to the terminal device itself (e.g., saving battery, reducing processing overhead, or a novel cryptographic handshake). It merely uses the terminal device in its normal capacity—to send data—while applying the abstract rule. Conclusion: The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim provide an "inventive concept"?
Sending a data packet from a terminal device to a network device is the most basic, conventional, and well-understood function of any networked device. Adding a generic "forwarding policy" and "trust levels" without technical specificity simply amounts to appending "apply it on a computer" to the abstract idea. Conclusion: There is no inventive concept. The claim lacks the technical specificity required to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As per claim 19:
Step 1: Statutory Category: The claim explicitly recites a "terminal device comprising: a processor, and a memory." It clearly satisfies the requirement of being a statutory machine (or apparatus).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
The instructions executed by the processor are identical to the steps in your previous method claim: obtaining trust levels, checking a forwarding policy, and sending a data packet based on conditional logic. The Supreme Court established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank that if the underlying steps are directed to an abstract idea (like conditional if/then logic, organizing information, or mental processes), reciting them within a generic computer environment does not change their abstract nature.
The operations claimed are still directed to an abstract idea (information processing and evaluating conditional rules).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
The hardware components are recited at the highest level of generality. The claim does not describe any specific, technical improvement to how the processor operates, how the memory stores data, or how the terminal device functions mechanically or computationally. The hardware is simply invoked as a generic tool to carry out the abstract idea of evaluating trust and forwarding a packet. The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim provide an "inventive concept"?
Reciting a "processor" and "memory" to execute instructions is the absolute baseline of modern computing. There is nothing inventive about using a generic processor to retrieve a trust score and send a data packet. These are purely conventional, routine, and well-understood computer functions. Conclusion: There is no inventive concept. The claim merely instructs a practitioner to "apply" the abstract idea on a standard computer device.
As per claims 10-14, 17, 18 and 21: These claims add the mechanics of how the terminal device sets up its network connection and negotiates trust parameters. The collection of data, negotiating device capabilities (handshaking), and registering a device on a network are routine, conventional activities. Claiming standard telecom protocols (MIB, SIB) or checking location data to find a nearby router merely confines the abstract idea of “verifying trust” to a specific technological environment (a cellular or Wi-Fi network). These claims to not cure the underlying abstract nature of the independent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, US 2009/0252161 in view of Phillips et al., US 7,827,256 and further in view of Giles et al, US 8,578,441.
Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a method of data transmission, applied to a first network device (Abstract: “routing a data packet based on geospatial information”; Fig. 2, receiving network node 204; 0018-0022: a network routing device receiving and processing incoming data packets), comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a first data packet…and a forwarding policy of the first data packet (Morris teaches receiving a first data packet comprising a forwarding policy such as geospatial or latency constraints. Paragraph 0011: FIG. 1, in block 102 a data packet is received, at a receiving network node. The data packet is transmitted by a source host for transmitting to a destination host. 0035: receiving a packet comprising embedded policy constraints from the source node. 0021: A level of trust can be based on trust information. Trust information can be received via a user interface, a configuration data store, and/or via a message received from another network node. Trust information can be for specifying a policy, evaluating a policy, and/or for generating and maintaining a routing table. Trust information can be received by the general processing unit 206).
Morris teaches evaluating routing parameters it does not explicitly use the term ‘first quality of trust level’ not teach deriving it from a target application and carrying it in the data packet.
However, Phillips teaches a first quality of trust level of a service wherein the first quality of trust level is a quality of trust level of a target application corresponding to the service (evaluating an application at the OSI Application layer (Layer 7) and translating the application’s specific requirements into packet-level markings (Layer 3/4); Col. 5, lines 60-67: Attributes of application messages…can be used to determine how to mark packets of the messages with QoS values…integrating application-level concepts of order and priority into network-layer QoS mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris to include mapping an applications specific trust/security requirement down to the packet level in order to derive packet level markings directly from the attributes of the target application generating the service, as taught by Phillips.
Giles teaches wherein the first quality of trust level is carried in the first data packet (Giles teaches inserting a security label into the data packet (Col. 2, lines 29-30: specifically utilizing the ToS byte or IPv6 flow label) before it is routed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris, as modified above, to include a security label embedded in the IP header to enforce routing policies, as taught by Giles.
Morris, as modified above, further teaches obtaining a second quality of trust level of a second network device (0025: FIG. 4, the first network path A 404 is associated with a first geospatial region A 408 and the second network path A 414 is associated with a second geospatial region A 418. Similarly, trust information associated with a portion of a network path for policy specification and/or evaluation can be received via a message from any network node in the network 400.); and sending, to the second network device, the first data packet based on the first quality of trust level and the second quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy (0056: block 110 the data packet is routed via the identified network interface. Accordingly, a system for routing a data packet based on geospatial information includes means for routing the data packet via the identified network interface. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a line card component 214 is configured for routing the data packet via the identified network interface.).
Regarding claim 2, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein before the receiving, from the terminal device, the first data packet, the method further comprises: sending, to the terminal device, a first message comprising a third quality of trust level of the first network device; wherein the first data packet is sent by the terminal device based on the first quality of trust level and the third quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy (0058: An FEA optionally interoperating with an associated REA can be configured for modifying the transmission of the data packet based on a policy and/or routing table information stored in the including line card. For example, the second FEA 320 interoperating with the second REA 318 can alter a network path including a next hop to be traversed by the network packet prior to providing the data packet to the second network interface 212 for transmitting. The second FEA 320 can identify yet another network interface for transmitting the data packet or can interoperate with the forwarding engine 210 to identify another network interface or confirm the network interface identified by the first FEA 310.).
Regarding claim 3, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein before the sending, to the terminal device, the first message, the method further comprises: sending, to a first core network node, first configuration information and a first signature of the first configuration information (0021: Trust information can be received via a user interface, a configuration data store, and/or via a message received from another network node. Trust information can be for specifying a policy, evaluating a policy, and/or for generating and maintaining a routing table. Trust information can be received by the general processing unit 206), so that the first core network node determines the third quality of trust level based on the first signature and the first configuration information according to a configuration policy of an operator; and receiving, from the first core network node, first quality of trust configuration information comprising the third quality of trust level (0023: level of trust can be included in a certificate and/or a signature associated with a network node included in the portion of the network path. The certificate and/or the signature can be signed or otherwise verified by a third-party. The third-party can be associated with a level of trust by the receiving network node 204. Accordingly, the general processing unit component 206 can determine a level of trust by receiving trust information including the level of trust in the certificate and/or the signature.).
Regarding claim 7, Morris , as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the forwarding policy comprises at least one of: when the first quality of trust level is lower than or equal to the second quality of trust level, sending the first data packet to the second network device (0033: a portion of a network path having a geospatial region including or being known to include network sniffing device can be associated with a relatively lower level of trust than a geospatial region including a network and network nodes without any known current or past history of included sniffing devices.);
when the first quality of trust level is higher than the second quality of trust level and the service accepts degraded transmission (0035: a subnet including the second network node B 436 in the second geospatial region B 438 can have a higher level of trust at certain hours of the day or certain times of the year.), sending the first data packet to the second network device (fig. 1, 110); when the first quality of trust level is higher than the second quality of trust level, skipping sending the first data packet to the second network device; when the first quality of trust level is higher than the second quality of trust level, fragmenting the first data packet, and sending, through different paths, sub-data packets obtained through fragmentation to a core network node of which a quality of trust level is higher than or equal to the first quality of trust level, so that the core network node combines and restores the sub-data packets obtained through fragmentation to the first data packet, and sends the first data packet to a next hop; or when the first quality of trust level is higher than the second quality of trust level and the second quality of trust level is higher than or equal to a lowest available quality of trust level of the first data packet, sending the first data packet to the second network device (0061: a forwarding engine 210 can apply a policy that assigns a relatively low priority to the data packet determined to have data of relatively low sensitivity on the presumption that the likelihood of tampering is low regardless of the time the data in the packet is on the relatively high trust portion of the network path to the destination.).
Regarding claim 8, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level, and the first data packet is a sub-data packet obtained by fragmenting a data packet of the service by the terminal device; and the sending, to the second network device, the first data packet based on the first quality of trust level and the second quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy comprises: sending, to a second core network node, the first data packet, so that the second core network node obtains the data packet of the service based on the first data packet and a second data packet, and sending the data packet of the service to the second network device based on the first quality of trust level and the second quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy, wherein a quality of trust level of the second core network node is higher than or equal to the first quality of trust level, the second data packet is a sub-data packet other than the first data packet that is obtained by fragmenting the data packet of the service by the terminal device, the second data packet is sent by a third network device to the second core network node, the first quality of trust level is higher than a fifth quality of trust level of the third network device, and the data packet of the service comprises the forwarding policy (0061: a forwarding engine 210 can apply a policy that assigns a relatively low priority to the data packet determined to have data of relatively low sensitivity on the presumption that the likelihood of tampering is low regardless of the time the data in the packet is on the relatively high trust portion of the network path to the destination.).
Regarding claim 9, Morris teaches a method of data transmission, applied to a terminal device (fig. 2 receiving network node 204), comprising:
Morris teaches evaluating routing parameters it does not explicitly use the term ‘first quality of trust level’ not teach deriving it from a target application and carrying it in the data packet.
However, Phillips teaches a first quality of trust level of a service wherein the first quality of trust level is a quality of trust level of a target application corresponding to the service (evaluating an application at the OSI Application layer (Layer 7) and translating the application’s specific requirements into packet-level markings (Layer 3/4); Col. 5, lines 60-67: Attributes of application messages…can be used to determine how to mark packets of the messages with QoS values…integrating application-level concepts of order and priority into network-layer QoS mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris to include mapping an applications specific trust/security requirement down to the packet level in order to derive packet level markings directly from the attributes of the target application generating the service, as taught by Phillips.
Giles teaches wherein the first quality of trust level is carried in the first data packet (Giles teaches inserting a security label into the data packet (Col. 2, lines 29-30: specifically utilizing the ToS byte or IPv6 flow label) before it is routed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris, as modified above, to include a security label embedded in the IP header to enforce routing policies, as taught by Giles.
Morris, as modified above, further discloses obtaining a third quality of trust level of a first network device (0025: FIG. 4, the first network path A 404 is associated with a first geospatial region A 408 and the second network path A 414 is associated with a second geospatial region A 418. Similarly, trust information associated with a portion of a network path for policy specification and/or evaluation can be received via a message from any network node in the network 400.); and
sending, to the first network device, the first data packet based on the first quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy, and based on the third quality of trust level (0056: block 110 the data packet is routed via the identified network interface. Accordingly, a system for routing a data packet based on geospatial information includes means for routing the data packet via the identified network interface. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a line card component 214 is configured for routing the data packet via the identified network interface.).
Regarding claim 10 and 21, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein before the obtaining the first quality of trust level of the current service and the forwarding policy of the first data packet of the service, the method further comprises: receiving, from the first network device, a first message comprising the third quality of trust level; and storing the third quality of trust level, wherein the third quality of trust level is determined by a first core network node based on first configuration information of the first network device and a first signature of the first configuration information according to a configuration policy of an operator (0023: Trust information can include a level of trust and/or geospatial information for determining a level of trust. For example, the trust information included in the received data packet can include a level of trust. For example, a level of trust can be included in a certificate and/or a signature associated with a network node included in the portion of the network path. The certificate and/or the signature can be signed or otherwise verified by a third-party. The third-party can be associated with a level of trust by the receiving network node 204. Accordingly, the general processing unit component 206 can determine a level of trust by receiving trust information including the level of trust in the certificate and/or the signature.).
Regarding claim 11, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein after the storing the third quality of trust level, the method further comprises: accessing, by using the first network device, a network and sending registration signaling to a control plane node on a network side, wherein the registration signaling comprises a quality of trust service policy of the terminal device and a lowest quality of trust level required by the terminal device, the quality of trust service policy is used to determine a data forwarding policy for an application on the terminal device, and the application comprises a target application corresponding to the service; and receiving, from the control plane node, a fourth message forwarded by the first network device, wherein the fourth message comprises a highest quality of trust level provided by the network, the fourth message is sent when the control plane node determines to accept registration of the terminal device according to the quality of trust service policy and based on the lowest quality of trust level, or based on subscription information of the terminal device on the network side, and the highest quality of trust level is used to determine that the target application is available (0021: level of trust can be based on trust information. Trust information can be received via a user interface, a configuration data store, and/or via a message received from another network node. Trust information can be for specifying a policy, evaluating a policy, and/or for generating and maintaining a routing table. Trust information can be received by the general processing unit 206. For example, trust information can be received in a message, such as a message from a directory service such as a domain name service (DNS). For example, the receiving network node 204 can send a query to the DNS system for retrieving geospatial information associated with a network address of a network node stored in a LOC record. The network node can be included in a network path to a destination host. A level of trust can be determined based on geospatial information received in a response from the DNS system to the query. 0061: a forwarding engine 210 can apply a policy that assigns a relatively low priority to the data packet determined to have data of relatively low sensitivity on the presumption that the likelihood of tampering is low regardless of the time the data in the packet is on the relatively high trust portion of the network path to the destination.).
Regarding claim 13, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein after the receiving, from the control plane node, the fourth message forwarded by the first network device, the method further comprises: sending, to the first core network node by using the first network device, wherein the second message comprising location information of the terminal device, an identifier of a reference network device , and a fourth quality of trust level of the terminal device, the second message is used to request the first core network node to determine, from the reference network device based on the fourth quality of trust level, the location information, and a quality of trust level of the reference network device, a target network device accessible to the terminal device, the reference network device comprises a network device in a range determined based on the location information, and the identifier of the reference network device indicates the reference network device (0031: A second geospatial region B 438 is associated with the second network node B 436. The general processing unit 206 can receive trust information identifying a level of trust associated with the second network node B 436. Trust information identifying a level of trust can be received via a configuration interface and/or via a message from one or more network nodes in the network 400 including the receiving network node, the router 204.).
Regarding claim 14, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the first message comprises the control plane signaling from the first core network node, and the receiving, from the first network device, the first message comprises: receiving, from the first core network node, the control plane signaling forwarded by the first network device, wherein the control plane signaling from the first core network node comprises an identifier and a quality of trust level of the target network device, and the target network device comprises the first network device (0022: he data packet can include routing information that identifies network addresses of a portion of a network path from the source host to the destination host, such as a route traversed and/or a route allowing the data packet to be transmitted to a destination host. For example, an IP packet routed using source routing can include routing information. Further, trust information can identify a network interface of a network node included in the portion of the network path. The identifier can be a network address and/or a host name included in the packet as a geospatial identifier and/or can be an identifier from which geospatial information can be determined.).
Regarding claim 15, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the forwarding policy comprises at least one of:
when the first quality of trust level is lower than or equal to the third quality of trust level, sending the first data packet to the first network device; when the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level and the service accepts degraded transmission, sending the first data packet to the first network device; when the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level, skipping sending the first data packet to the first network device; when the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level, fragmenting the first data packet, and sending, through different paths, sub-data packets obtained through fragmentation to a core network node of which a quality of trust level is higher than or equal to the first quality of trust level, so that the core network node combines and restores the sub-data packets obtained through fragmentation to the first data packet, and sends the first data packet to a next hop; or when the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level and the third quality of trust level is higher than or equal to a lowest available quality of trust level of the first data packet, sending the first data packet to the first network device (0033: a high level of trust can be associated with a receiving network node and a network node that have a common owner. A level of trust can be determined based on information associated with a government entity with authority of a geospatial region that includes a network node. Levels of trust can be assigned for specific government entities from which a level of trust can be determined or assigned for a network node associated with a geospatial region under control of a particular government entity. An administrative entity for administering a network node, or with administrative authority over a geospatial region associated with a network node, can identify or be used for determining a level of trust associated with the geospatial region and the network node. A level of trust can be assigned to a network node associated with a geospatial region by a certification entity.).
Regarding claim 16, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the first data packet is a sub-data packet obtained by fragmenting a data packet of the service by the terminal device; and after the receiving, from the control plane node, the fourth message forwarded by the first network device, the method further comprises: obtaining a fifth quality of trust level of a third network device, wherein the fifth quality of trust level is obtained based on a fifth message sent by the third network device; and in response to the first quality of trust level is higher than the third quality of trust level and the fifth quality of trust level, fragmenting the data packet of the service, to obtain the first data packet and a second data packet, wherein the second data packet is a sub-data packet other than the first data packet that is obtained by fragmenting the data packet of the service by the terminal device, and the data packet of the service comprises the forwarding policy; and sending the second data packet to the third network device based on the first quality of trust level, according to the forwarding policy, and based on the fifth quality of trust level (0061: a forwarding engine 210 can apply a policy that assigns a relatively high priority to the data packet determined to include sensitive data on the presumption that the faster the packet reaches its destination the less opportunity there will be for tampering or otherwise interfering with the data packet. Alternatively, when a level of trust determined for identifying the network interface is relatively high, a forwarding engine 210 can apply a policy that assigns a relatively low priority to the data packet determined to have data of relatively low sensitivity on the presumption that the likelihood of tampering is low regardless of the time the data in the packet is on the relatively high trust portion of the network path to the destination).
Regarding claim 17, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein before the receiving the first message, the method further comprises: determining a quality of trust level of the application based on a quality of trust grading in a second quality of trust configuration information, wherein the second quality of trust configuration information comprises the quality of trust service policy; and determining the data forwarding policy of the application according to the quality of trust service policy based on the quality of trust level of the application, wherein the fourth quality of trust level of the terminal device is determined based on the quality of trust grading (0047: the forwarding engine component 210 can be configured for performing a routing policy operation on a routing policy based on the determined level of trust for identifying the network interface. As discussed above, the routing policy operation on a routing policy can include an evaluation of the routing policy. As such, the forwarding engine 210 can be configured for identifying the network interface for transmitting the data packet based on an evaluation of a policy based on a level of trust. The forwarding engine 210 can retrieve a routing policy from the routing engine 208 for evaluation. The policy can be retrieved based on any information in the packet, a network path associated with the packet, a network node included in the network path associated with the packet, geospatial information, a level of trust indicator, and other data as required for required operation of the network 400 and or the receiving network node 204.).
Regarding claim 18, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein before the determining the quality of trust level of the application based on the quality of trust grading in the second quality of trust configuration information, the method further comprises: sending, to the first core network node by using the first network device, second configuration information and a second signature of the second configuration information; and receiving, from the first core network node, the second quality of trust configuration information forwarded by the first network device, wherein the second quality of trust configuration information is determined by the first core network node based on the second signature and the second configuration information according to the configuration policy of an operator, and the second quality of trust configuration information comprises the fourth quality of trust level (0023: Trust information can include a level of trust and/or geospatial information for determining a level of trust. For example, the trust information included in the received data packet can include a level of trust. For example, a level of trust can be included in a certificate and/or a signature associated with a network node included in the portion of the network path. The certificate and/or the signature can be signed or otherwise verified by a third-party. The third-party can be associated with a level of trust by the receiving network node 204. Accordingly, the general processing unit component 206 can determine a level of trust by receiving trust information including the level of trust in the certificate and/or the signature.).
Regarding claim 19, Morris teaches a terminal device, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the terminal device to perform operations (Fig. 2, receiving network node 204), the operations including:
Morris teaches evaluating routing parameters it does not explicitly use the term ‘first quality of trust level’ not teach deriving it from a target application and carrying it in the data packet.
However, Phillips teaches a first quality of trust level of a service wherein the first quality of trust level is a quality of trust level of a target application corresponding to the service (evaluating an application at the OSI Application layer (Layer 7) and translating the application’s specific requirements into packet-level markings (Layer 3/4); Col. 5, lines 60-67: Attributes of application messages…can be used to determine how to mark packets of the messages with QoS values…integrating application-level concepts of order and priority into network-layer QoS mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris to include mapping an applications specific trust/security requirement down to the packet level in order to derive packet level markings directly from the attributes of the target application generating the service, as taught by Phillips.
Giles teaches wherein the first quality of trust level is carried in the first data packet (Giles teaches inserting a security label into the data packet (Col. 2, lines 29-30: specifically utilizing the ToS byte or IPv6 flow label) before it is routed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, to modify Morris, as modified above, to include a security label embedded in the IP header to enforce routing policies, as taught by Giles.
Morris, as modified above, further teaches
obtaining a third quality of trust level of a first network device (0025: FIG. 4, the first network path A 404 is associated with a first geospatial region A 408 and the second network path A 414 is associated with a second geospatial region A 418. Similarly, trust information associated with a portion of a network path for policy specification and/or evaluation can be received via a message from any network node in the network 400.); and sending, to the first network device, the first data packet based on the first quality of trust level according to the forwarding policy, and based on the third quality of trust level (0056: block 110 the data packet is routed via the identified network interface. Accordingly, a system for routing a data packet based on geospatial information includes means for routing the data packet via the identified network interface. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, a line card component 214 is configured for routing the data packet via the identified network interface.).
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris, US 2009/0252161, in view of Phillips and further in view of Giles, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 19 above, and further in view of GUTT et al., WO 2014/028154 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Morris, as modified above, further lacks or does not expressly disclose wherein the first message comprises at least one of a master information block (MIB), a system information block (SIB), a beacon, or control plane signaling from the first core network node. However, GUTT teaches wherein the first message comprises at least one of a master information block (MIB), a system information block (SIB), a beacon, or control plane signaling from the first core network node (“the existing deployed infrastructure, an inter-related router network using enabled hardware is used for a management control plane signaling that may effectively allow tracking and tracing methods to be performed 30 for specific classes of traffic”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Morris, as modified above, with GUTT to include control plane signaling, in order to allow for tracking and tracing methods to be performed, as taught by GUTT.
Regarding claim 5, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein after the sending, to the first core network node, the first configuration information, the method further comprises: forwarding, to the first core network node, a second message from the terminal device, wherein the second message comprises location information of the terminal device, an identifier of a reference network device, and a fourth quality of trust level of the terminal device, the second message is used to request the first core network node to determine, from the reference network device based on the fourth quality of trust level, the location information, and a quality of trust level of the reference network device, a target network device accessible to the terminal device, the reference network device comprises a network device in a range determined based on the location information, and the identifier of the reference network device indicates the reference network device (0031: A second geospatial region B 438 is associated with the second network node B 436. The general processing unit 206 can receive trust information identifying a level of trust associated with the second network node B 436. Trust information identifying a level of trust can be received via a configuration interface and/or via a message from one or more network nodes in the network 400 including the receiving network node, the router 204.).
Regarding claim 6, Morris, as modified above, further teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the first message comprises the control plane signaling from the first core network node, and the sending, to the terminal device, the first message comprises: forwarding, to the terminal device, the control plane signaling from the first core network node comprising an identifier and a quality of trust level of the target network device, wherein the target network device comprises the first network device (FIG. 2, the first network interface 202 can provide packet information, such as the network address of the destination host, to the forwarding engine 210. The forwarding engine 210 can receive the routing information provided by the routing engine 208. The forwarding engine 210 can identify a network interface for transmitting the data packet via destination network path based on the routing information and network information associated with each network interface included in the receiving network node 204.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0202755 to Orsini et al teaches fragmenting data packet into sub-packets and sending them across different network paths to a restoration node for security purposes. Specifically, Orsini teaches dividing data into portions (sub-packets) and transmitting them along “different paths thus creating multiple streams of data”. This fragmentation is triggered to prevent data compromise by untrusted entities: “If any of these streams of data is compromised, the original message remains secure”. Orsini further teaches routing these sub-packets to an intended recipient location (a core network node) comprising a “packet restore module” that receives the shares from the different paths and restores the original packets.
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 AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ALI SHAYANFAR can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/AUBREY H WYSZYNSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
