DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisand et al. (US 2017/0366452 A1, hereinafter “Moisand”) in view of Shah et al. (US 2021/0119696 A1, hereinafter “Shah”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Moisand teaches a method for ordering services in a service chain comprising: receiving, at an edge router (e.g., Gateway 8 of fig. 1, fig. 5, ¶ [0049], although described with respect to gateway 8 as an example, the techniques described herein with respect to directly packet flows to service complex 9 for subscriber-specific services may be implemented by other network devices, such as any router, switch or other component or device. ¶ [0073]), one or more data packets; determining, at the edge router, a sequence order of service chain elements for the one or more data packets based upon an established sequence (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0028], ¶ [0031], gateway 8 steers individual subscriber packet flows 26 through defined sets of services provided by service nodes 10. That is, each subscriber packet flow may be forwarded through a particular ordered combination of services provided by service nodes 10, each ordered set being referred to herein as a “service chain.” ¶ [0032] ); transmitting and receiving, by the edge router in the sequence order, the one or more data packets to and from the service chain elements (fig. 1, ¶ [0031], ¶ [0032], ¶ [0033], Once processed at a terminal node of the service chain, i.e., the last node 10 to apply services to packets flowing along a particular service path, the terminal node may direct the traffic back to gateway 8 for further processing and/or forwarding to public network 12. For example, traffic engineered service paths may start and terminate with gateway 8); transmitting, by the edge router, the one more data packets to a destination after a last of the service chain elements has been performed (fig. 1, ¶ [0028], ¶ [0033]).
Moisand does not explicitly teach dynamically determining, at the edge router, a sequence order of service chain elements for the one or more data packets based upon an established sequence, wherein upon automatically detecting a packet characteristic or network condition from one or more data packets indicating that a payload should be altered, the sequence order modifies the established sequence to performing an altering service that alters a payload of the one or more packets prior to one or more remaining services that inspect the one or more packets.
Shah teaches an edge device dynamically determining/modifying sequence order of service chain elements to performing an altering service that alters a payload of the one or more packets upon automatically detecting a packet characteristic or network condition from one or more data packets indicating that a payload should be altered (fig. 1, ¶ [0027], The resources used to provide these functions typically need to be planned, maintained, and managed. Thus, the resources may not be scalable as a deployment of the satellite system may not be flexible to handle unplanned changes to the usage of network resources. ¶ [0028], functions such as firewall, TCP-spoofing, etc., can be deployed as Service Functions using Network Function Virtualization (NFV), which can mitigate the above-mentioned limitations often suffered by the acceleration and optimization functions in today's static and non-flexible way of deployment. Moreover, various services such as consumer broadband enterprise, cellular backhaul, Wi-Fi community hotspot, distance learning, news gathering etc., may have different requirements and characteristics. Thus, not all data packets may need to go through each and every available acceleration and optimization service function. ¶ [0044], A computer, e.g., the satellite gateway 150, upon receiving a data packet, may determine one or more Service Functions SF to be applied to the data packet based on one or more parameters such as data protocol, data content, destination of the data packet, network bandwidth. In one another example, the satellite gateway 150 computer 130 may identify a compression Service Function SF upon determining that a rate of duplicate data in the transmitted data packets exceeds a threshold, e.g., 100 Megabit per second (Mbit/Sec). A Compression Service Function includes reducing data bytes by finding duplicate or redundant information between data packets. Not all packets may be eligible for compression, e.g., packets including encrypted information, already compressed information, etc. The computer 130 may be programmed to include a Compression Service Function in the Service Function Chaining upon determining that the transmitted data is eligible for data compression, e.g., not encrypted and a date of duplicate data exceeding a threshold. Additionally, the computer 130 may be programmed to convert a data packet protocol from a non-IP protocol, e.g., Ethernet, to an IP protocol data packet. ¶ [0045], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0036], ¶ [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify, at the edge router upon automatically detecting a packet characteristic or network condition from one or more data packets indicating that a payload should be altered, a sequence order of service chain elements for the one or more data packets based upon an established sequence, to perform an altering service that alters a payload of the one or more packets prior to one or more remaining services that inspect the one or more packets in the system of Moisand to provide a dynamic and flexible way of selectively applying service function(s) to data packet(s) as needed (¶ [0028] of Shah) and to conserve resources by reducing data bytes by finding duplicate or redundant information between data packets (i.e., performing the compressing/altering services) prior to one or more services being performed.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Moisand in view of Shah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the established sequence is at least partially operator defined (Moisand: ¶ [0062]. Claims 12, 14).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Moisand in view of Sha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the established sequence has a first direction order that is used for sending packets and a second direction order that is used for receiving packets (Moisand: ¶ [0028], Flows 26 illustrated in FIG. 1 represent one or more upstream packet flows from any one or more subscriber devices 16 and directed to public network 12. The term “packet flow,” “traffic flow,” or simply “flow” refers to a set of packets originating from a particular source device and sent to a particular destination device. A single flow of packets, in either the upstream (sourced by one of subscriber devices 16) or downstream (destined for one of subscriber devices 16) direction, may be identified by the 5-tuple: ¶ [0036], SDN controller 19 may interact with gateway 8 to specify service chain 28A, 28B information. ¶ [0082], the gateway or other device may similarly steer inbound packets through service chains (e.g., to apply reverse NAT, firewall services and the like) prior to delivery of the inbound packets to the subscriber devices. Shah: ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Moisand in view of Shah teaches the method of claim 1.
Moisand does not explicitly teach wherein the sequence order is performed through an automatic detection operation.
Shah teaches wherein the sequence order is performed through an automatic detection operation (¶ [0028], ¶ [0035] and ¶ [0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the sequence order through an automatic detection operation in the system of Moisand in view of Shah to provide a dynamic and flexible way of selectively applying service function(s) to data packet(s) as needed (¶ [0028] of Shah).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Moisand in view of Shah teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: performing, by the service chain element, each of one or more services on the one or more data packets (Moisand: figs. 1-3, ¶ [0032], ¶ [0051], ¶ 0054]. Shah: figs. 1, 2, ¶ [0035], ¶ [0044]).
7. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moisand in view of Shah as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Schultz et al. (US 2017/0019335 A1, hereinafter “Schultz”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Moisand in view of Shah teaches the method of claim 3.
Moisand does not explicitly teach, wherein the established sequence for the first direction order is different from the sequence order in the second direction order.
Schultz teaches the well-known method of establishing a sequence for the first direction order is different from the sequence order in the second direction order (¶ [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to establish sequence for the first direction order different from the sequence order in the second direction order in the system of Moisand in view of Shah. The motivation for doing this is a matter of design choice (¶ [0030] of Schultz).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Moisand in view of Shah teaches the method of claim 4.
Moisand does not explicitly teach wherein the sequence order in a first direction order is opposite of the sequence order in a second direction order, except for the altering services are performed prior to other parts of the sequence order.
Schultz teaches wherein the sequence order in a first direction order is opposite of the sequence order in a second direction order (¶ [0030]). Schultz further teaches it is possible for the second direction data to flow through the service chain in an order that is different than the opposite order of first direction. It is also possible for the second direction data to pass through more, fewer, or different service nodes than first direction data. In one example, a service node that performs firewall functions may process traffic in both directions, while a DDoS service node only monitors first direction. Other example service chain policies are possible without departing from the scope of embodiments (¶ [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to establish the sequence order in a first direction order that is opposite of the sequence order in a second direction order, except for the altering services being performed prior to other parts of the sequence order in the system of Moisand in view of Shah and Schultz to conserve resources by reducing data bytes by finding duplicate or redundant information between data packets (i.e., performing the compressing/altering services) prior to other services being performed in each direction.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. Applicant argues “…As such, Moisand fails to teach or suggest dynamic modification triggered by automatic detection… Shah describes selecting service functions based on conditions (e.g., compression when duplicate data exceeds a threshold).
However, Shah does not disclose modifying an already established
sequence dynamically; it only determines an initial path during setup.
Shah lacks any teaching of runtime reordering of service chain elements
after the sequence has been established.
As such, Shah does not teach or suggest the claimed dynamic modification of an
established sequence based on automatic detection… Even if combined, Moisand and Shah would not render the amended claim obvious: Moisand provides static service chains; Shah provides initial selection logic. Neither reference teaches or suggests autonomous, real-time modification of an established sequence order based on evaluative conditions. The claimed invention introduces a conditional, dynamic decision- making process that improves network efficiency and performance by applying payload-altering services before inspection when conditions warrant. This technical improvement is not a mere design choice; it solves a specific problem of optimizing service chain execution under varying network conditions…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Moisand teaches determining, at the edge router, a sequence order of service chain elements for the one or more data packets based upon an established sequence (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0028], ¶ [0031], gateway 8 steers individual subscriber packet flows 26 through defined sets of services provided by service nodes 10. That is, each subscriber packet flow may be forwarded through a particular ordered combination of services provided by service nodes 10, each ordered set being referred to herein as a “service chain.” ¶ [0032]).
Shah teaches an edge device dynamically determining/modifying sequence order of service chain elements to performing an altering service that alters a payload of the one or more packets upon automatically detecting a packet characteristic or network condition from one or more data packets indicating that a payload should be altered (fig. 1, ¶ [0027], The resources used to provide these functions typically need to be planned, maintained, and managed. Thus, the resources may not be scalable as a deployment of the satellite system may not be flexible to handle unplanned changes to the usage of network resources. ¶ [0028], As disclosed herein, functions such as firewall, TCP-spoofing, etc., can be deployed as Service Functions using Network Function Virtualization (NFV), which can mitigate the above-mentioned limitations often suffered by the acceleration and optimization functions in today's static and non-flexible way of deployment. Moreover, various services such as consumer broadband enterprise, cellular backhaul, Wi-Fi community hotspot, distance learning, news gathering etc., may have different requirements and characteristics. Thus, not all data packets may need to go through each and every available acceleration and optimization service function. ¶ [0044], A computer, e.g., the satellite gateway 150, upon receiving a data packet, may determine one or more Service Functions SF to be applied to the data packet based on one or more parameters such as data protocol, data content, destination of the data packet, network bandwidth. In one another example, the satellite gateway 150 computer 130 may identify a compression Service Function SF upon determining that a rate of duplicate data in the transmitted data packets exceeds a threshold, e.g., 100 Megabit per second (Mbit/Sec). A Compression Service Function includes reducing data bytes by finding duplicate or redundant information between data packets. Not all packets may be eligible for compression, e.g., packets including encrypted information, already compressed information, etc. The computer 130 may be programmed to include a Compression Service Function in the Service Function Chaining upon determining that the transmitted data is eligible for data compression, e.g., not encrypted and a date of duplicate data exceeding a threshold. Additionally, the computer 130 may be programmed to convert a data packet protocol from a non-IP protocol, e.g., Ethernet, to an IP protocol data packet. ¶ [0045], ¶ [0035], ¶ [0036], ¶ [0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify, at the edge router upon automatically detecting a packet characteristic or network condition from one or more data packets indicating that a payload should be altered, a sequence order of service chain elements for the one or more data packets based upon an established sequence, to perform an altering service that alters a payload of the one or more packets prior to one or more remaining services that inspect the one or more packets in the system of Moisand to provide a dynamic and flexible way of selectively applying service function(s) to data packet(s) as needed (¶ [0028] of Shah) and to conserve resources by reducing data bytes by finding duplicate or redundant information between data packets (i.e., performing the compressing/altering services) prior to one or more services being performed.
Therefore, Moisand in view of Shah render obvious the amended claims 1, 8 and 15, as set forth above.
Conclusion
10. 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 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDISH RANDHAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9 AM-7 PM).
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/MANDISH K RANDHAWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights