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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 11/26/25 in which claims 1-11and 13-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 13-21 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
3. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,951490 to Kumaran et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2013/0060933 to Tung et al.
a. As per claim 1, Kumaran teaches a method comprising: computing, by a controller and based on a metric associated with an application or application-group for one or more network devices a recommended service level agreement (SLA) metric for the application or application-group (See col. 2, lines 2-11); and sending, by the controller, the recommended SLA metric to at least a first network device of the one or more network devices to cause the first network device to compute, an intent-based SLA metric used to select a path on which to send traffic from the application or application-group (See col. 7, lines 39-50, Specifically, a supervisory service for a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) tracks a performance metric for a tunnel in the SD-WAN. The supervisory service computes a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the tracked performance metric. The service assesses curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to a service level agreement (SLA) threshold of an application for that performance metric. The service controls assignment of traffic for the application to the tunnel, based on the assessed curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to the SLA threshold of the application for that performance metric). However, Kumaran fails to teach wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level.
Tung et al teaches wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level (See paragraph [0029, 0041, 0060, the user may set a rule that triggers an action when resource capacity availability reaches 80%).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Tung et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to for the user accommodate the user’s restrictions and/or preferences.
b. As per claim 4, Kumaran teaches a method comprising: sending, by a network device and to a controller, a metric for the network device, wherein the metric is associated with an application or application-group (See col. 2, lines 2-11); receiving, by the network device and from the controller, a recommended service level agreement (SLA) metric associated with the application or application-group, wherein the recommended SLA metric is computed based on at least the metric from the metric for the network device; computing, by the network device, an intent-based SLA metric, wherein (See col. 7, lines 39-50, Specifically, a supervisory service for a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) tracks a performance metric for a tunnel in the SD-WAN. The supervisory service computes a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the tracked performance metric. The service assesses curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to a service level agreement (SLA) threshold of an application for that performance metric. The service controls assignment of traffic for the application to the tunnel, based on the assessed curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to the SLA threshold of the application for that performance metric);; and selecting, by the network device and based on the intent-based SLA metric, a path on which to send traffic from the application or application-group (See col. 6, lines 52-55 and col. 8, lines 20-32, Selecting a tunnel on which the application traffic is routed is typically performed by comparing the SLA requirement of the application to what the tunnel is able to provide). However, Kumaran fails to explicitly teach wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level.
Tung et al teaches wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and computing, by the network device and based on a user-configured intent model an intent based SLA and the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level (See paragraph [0029, 0041, 0060, the user may set a rule that triggers an action when resource capacity availability reaches 80%).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Tung et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to for the user accommodate the user’s restrictions and/or preferences.
c. AS per claim 13, Kumaran teaches a network device comprising: memory (See col. 4, lines 41-55); and one or more processors in communication with the memory (See col. 4, lines 41-55), the one or more processors configured to: send a metric of the network device to a controller, wherein the metric is associated with an application or application-group (See paragraph ; receive, from the controller, a recommended service level agreement (SLA) metric associated with the application or application-group, wherein the recommended SLA metric is computed based on the metric of the network device; compute, an intent-based SLA metric (See col. 7, lines 39-50, Specifically, a supervisory service for a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) tracks a performance metric for a tunnel in the SD-WAN. The supervisory service computes a cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the tracked performance metric. The service assesses curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to a service level agreement (SLA) threshold of an application for that performance metric. The service controls assignment of traffic for the application to the tunnel, based on the assessed curvature of the CDF for the tracked performance metric relative to the SLA threshold of the application for that performance metric); wherein the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level; and select, based on the intent-based SLA metric, a path on which to send traffic from the application or application-group (See col. 6, lines 52-55 and col. 8, lines 20-32, Selecting a tunnel on which the application traffic is routed is typically performed by comparing the SLA requirement of the application to what the tunnel is able to provide). However, Kumaran fails to explicitly teach wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and wherein the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level.
Tung et al teaches wherein the SLA is based on user-configured intent model and wherein the user-configured intent model comprises a defined tolerance level that is used to tune the recommended SLA metric based on the defined tolerance level (See paragraph [0029, 0041, 0060, the user may set a rule that triggers an action when resource capacity availability reaches 80%).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Tung et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to for the user accommodate the user’s restrictions and/or preferences.
d. As per claims 3 and 10, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Kumaran teaches wherein the metric is included in a batch of a plurality of metrics (See col. 6, lines 55-58, performance metrics such as loss, latency, or jitter. If the measured value of the metric).
e. As per claims 5 and 14, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Kumaran teaches wherein the metric for the network device comprises a metric for one or more links connected to the network device, wherein computing the intent-based SLA metric further comprises computing the intent- based SLA metric based on one or more characteristics of the one or more links, wherein the one or more links comprises a wireless link (See col. 2, lines 41-64), and wherein the one or more characteristics of the wireless link comprises at least one of a latency, signal strength, coverage, data rate, bandwidth per unit area, frequency, or vendor (See col. 6, lines 52-62).
f. As per claims 6 and 15, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Kumaran teaches wherein the metric for the network device comprises a metric for one or more links connected to the network device, wherein computing the intent-based SLA metric further comprises computing the intent- based SLA metric based on one or more characteristics of the one or more links, wherein the one or more links comprises a physical link (See col. 2, lines 15-40), and wherein the one or more characteristics of the physical link comprises at least a link type, support for data rate, transceiver, standard, vendor, or signal strength (See col. 2, lines 15-40).
g. As per claims 7 and 16, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Kumaran teaches wherein the tolerance level comprises at least one of a first tolerance level that causes the network device to apply the recommended SLA metric in a more aggressive manner when selecting the path, a second tolerance level that causes the network device to apply the recommended SLA metric as is when selecting the path, or a third tolerance level that causes the network device to apply the recommended SLA metric in a more conservative manner when selecting the path (See col 9, lines 50-67 and col. 10, lines 1-20).
h. As per claim20, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Kumaran teaches comprising: storing, by the network device, an indication of whether one or more links connected to the network device satisfy the intent-based SLA metric (See col. 10, lines 34-67 and col. 11, lines 1-3).
5. Claims 2, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,951490 to Kumaran et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2013/0060933 to Tung et al as applied to claims 1 and 13 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0018847 to Vanbeck et al.
a. As per claims 2, 11 and 19, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Kumaran fails to teach wherein computing the recommended SLA metric comprises determining a mean of an aggregate of the SLA metric received from each of the one or more network devices.
Vanbeck et al teaches wherein computing the recommended SLA metric comprises determining a mean of an aggregate of the SLA metric received from each of the one or more network devices (See paragraph [0009 and 0011]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Vanbeck et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to predict long-term average number of failures against given performance targets of SLA metrics.
6. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U U.S. Patent No. 10,951490 to Kumaran et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2013/0060933 to Tung et al as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0047999 to Wei et al.
a. As per claims 8 and 17, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Kumaran fails to teach selecting the path to send traffic from the application or application-group comprises determining a shortest path based on at least one of Dijkstra's algorithm, Bellman-Ford algorithm, Breadth-First Search (BFS), Depth- First Search (DFS), Floyd-Warshall algorithm, Johnson's algorithm, Kruskal's algorithm, Prim's algorithm, or Bornvka's algorithm.
Wei teaches selecting the path to send traffic from the application or application-group comprises determining a shortest path based on at least one of Dijkstra's algorithm, Bellman-Ford algorithm, Breadth-First Search (BFS), Depth- First Search (DFS), Floyd-Warshall algorithm, Johnson's algorithm, Kruskal's algorithm, Prim's algorithm, or Bornvka's algorithm (See paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Wei et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to select the shortest path accurately.
7. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,951490 to Kumaran et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2013/0060933 to Tung et al as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0326598 to Vasseur et al
a. As per claim 9 and 18, Kumaran teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Kumaran fails to teach wherein the metric is determined using a measurement protocol comprising at least one of a real-time performance monitoring (RPM), one-way active measurement protocol (OWAMP), two-way active measurement protocol (TWAMP), active probing, passive-probing, or protocol deep packet inspection (DPI) engines.
Vasseur et al teaches wherein the metric is determined using a measurement protocol comprising at least one of a real-time performance monitoring (RPM), one-way active measurement protocol (OWAMP), two-way active measurement protocol (TWAMP), active probing, passive-probing, or protocol deep packet inspection (DPI) engines (See paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Vasseur et al in the claimed invention of Kumaran in order to measure metrics on the set of paths.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. 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 DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights