DETAILED ACTION
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
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 1-7 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”) (European Patent Publication No. 2058986) in view of Paraschis et al. (“Paraschis”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219618).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a path selection method for selecting a path for an Internet traffic flow with an underlying optical network in a network element, the method comprising: obtaining, by the network element, a plurality of paths for the Internet traffic flow through the optical network, wherein each path of the plurality of paths comprises a specified plurality of hops between nodes (fig. 2(a) and paragraphs 0038-0042, the sections between adjacent nodes N reads on hops); determining, by the network element, a unused bandwidth for the each path of the plurality of paths based on an amount of requested bandwidth for the Internet traffic flow and determining an used bandwidth of each hop of the specified plurality of hops of the path (paragraph 0047, calculating the cost function value of each logic link according to the request bandwidth and the remaining bandwidth of the link, which includes a cost function value coefficient use to adjust the weight of the remaining bandwidth – remaining bandwidth is unused bandwidth, i.e., “unused” bandwidth, where the wavelength link is the section between nodes, i.e., a per-hop bandwidth parameter – “between two adjacent nodes” – paragraph 0042), and selecting, by the network element, either no path or one path of the plurality of paths, the selection based on a selection criterion value determined for the each path of the plurality of paths, the selection criterion value based on the unused bandwidth for the path (paragraphs 0038 and 0051, selecting the link with the minimum remaining bandwidth). Li discloses the underlying network is an IP network with underlying WDM (paragraph 0038), but does not disclose underlying OTN. Paraschis discloses OTN as an intermediary layer underlying the IP layer, above the WDM layer (fig. 5 and paragraphs 0003 and 0087). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layered SDN/protocol approach taught by Paraschis, since to provide the additional OTN layer 1 functionality, including multiplexing and switching of ODU connections and OTU framing.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 1, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on a total unused bandwidth for the path over all hops of the plurality of hops of the path (Li: paragraph 0047, calculating the cost function value of each logic link according to the request bandwidth and the remaining bandwidth of the link, the remaining/unused link bandwidth is the “total unused” bandwidth – the minimum cost function value of all wavelength links reads on “all hops”); and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a minimum selection criterion value (Li: paragraphs 0038 and 0051, selecting the link with the minimum remaining bandwidth).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 1, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on a minimum unused bandwidth among all hops of the path (Li: paragraph 0052 in light of paragraph 0051); and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a maximum selection criterion value (Li: paragraphs 0053-0055, among paths with the minimum cost function value, the path with the most logic links is selected).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 1, wherein each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on the unused bandwidth of each hop of the path (Li: paragraphs 0038 and 0051-0052, selecting the link with the minimum remaining, i.e. “unused”, bandwidth).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 4, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on (i) a total unused bandwidth for the path and (ii) a minimum unused bandwidth among all the hops of the path (Li: paragraph 0052 in light of paragraph 0051, the minimum unused bandwidth is for the path, i.e. is the “total” minimum for the path); and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a maximum selection criterion value (Li: paragraphs 0053-0055, among paths with the minimum cost function value, the path with the most logic links is selected).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 4, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on a variance of the unused bandwidth of the hops of the path, and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a minimum selection criterion value (Li: paragraph 0052 in light of paragraph 0051, finding with path has the minimum coast function value includes comparing paths, i.e. considering the variance of the paths’ minimum cost function value relative to each other).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the path selection method of claim 4, wherein selecting the path comprises randomly selecting one of a subset of paths, where the each path of the subset of paths has an equal value of the selection criterion (Li: paragraphs 0053-0054 and 0056, where “any path is selected” reads on randomly selected in view of paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses a method for routing path selection and bandwidth reservation, the method comprising: receiving a bandwidth reservation request sent by a sending node with an optical network as an underlying network, the bandwidth reservation request comprising information relating to an amount of requested bandwidth for an Internet traffic flow with the optical network, and an identity of a receiving node with the optical network as the underlying network (paragraphs 0014 and 00209); obtaining a plurality of paths for the Internet traffic flow through the optical network wherein each path of the plurality of paths comprises a specified plurality of hops between nodes (fig. 2(a) and paragraphs 0038-0042, the sections between adjacent nodes N reads on hops); determining a unused bandwidth for the each path of the plurality of paths based on the amount of requested bandwidth for the Internet traffic flow and an unused bandwidth of each hop of the specified plurality of hops of the path (paragraph 0047, calculating the cost function value of each logic link according to the request bandwidth and the remaining bandwidth of the link, which includes a cost function value coefficient use to adjust the weight of the remaining bandwidth – remaining bandwidth is unused bandwidth, i.e., “unused” bandwidth, where the wavelength link is the section between nodes, i.e., a per-hop bandwidth parameter – “between two adjacent nodes” – paragraph 0042); selecting either no path or one path of the plurality of paths, the selection based on a selection criterion value determined for the each path of the plurality of paths, the selection criterion value based on the unused bandwidth for the path (paragraphs 0038 and 0051, selecting the link with the minimum remaining bandwidth);
Li discloses the path selection and bandwidth reservation method in the context of a routing path determining unit, which reads on network controller (paragraphs 0013 and 0020-0022), and discloses creating the logic link for the path, which inherently includes some type of path bandwidth allocation signaling to the nodes of the path to cause the nodes to reserve the requested bandwidth that corresponds to the determined logic link for the IP service, i.e., Internet, traffic flow (paragraph 0018 and 0057) but does not disclose that it is the network controller is “software defined,” and does not discloses the details of sending a bandwidth reservation response to the sending node, the bandwidth reservation response comprising information identifying the selected path, if any. And Li discloses the underlying network is an IP network with underlying WDM (paragraph 0038), but does not disclose underlying OTN. Paraschis discloses OTN as an intermediary layer underlying the IP layer, above the WDM layer, and an SDN controller managing IP, OTN and WDM layers (fig. 5 and paragraphs 0003 and 0087), and discloses SDN controller functions that includes managing both request functions and response functions (fig. 9 and paragraph 0107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the layered SDN/protocol and SDN controller approach taught by Paraschis, since to provide the additional OTN layer 1 functionality, including multiplexing and switching of ODU connections and OTU framing, and the programmability of control inherent to software based control. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bandwidth reservation response function from the nodes to the controller, after the logic link path is created, to provide the benefit of the controller confirming the intended logic link creation did occur.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on a total unused bandwidth for the path (Li: paragraph 0047, calculating the cost function value of each logic link according to the request bandwidth and the remaining bandwidth of the link, the remaining/unused link bandwidth is the “total unused” bandwidth); and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a minimum selection criterion value (Li: paragraphs 0038 and 0051, selecting the link with the minimum remaining bandwidth).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the method of claim 15, wherein each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on the unused bandwidth of each hop of the path (Li: paragraphs 0038 and 0051-0052, selecting the link with the minimum remaining, i.e. “unused”, bandwidth).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the method of claim 15, wherein: each selection criterion value for the each path of the plurality of paths is determined based on a minimum unused bandwidth among all hops of the path (Li: paragraph 0052 in light of paragraph 0051); and selecting the path comprises selecting the path having a maximum selection criterion value (Li: paragraphs 0053-0055, among paths with the minimum cost function value, the path with the most logic links is selected).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Li and Paraschis discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the bandwidth reservation request further includes information relating to the selection criterion (Li: paragraph 0047, the requested bandwidth value is information relating to the selection criterion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
Claim 20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Li does not disclose that each path comprises a specified plurality of hops between nodes and that determining unused bandwidth is based on an unused bandwidth of each hop of the specified plurality of hops of the path. This argument is not persuasive. Li’s paths are based on plural hops, e.g., each section between nodes n in fig. 2(a), and Li’s wavelength link parameter is the per-hop parameter for the bandwidth determination. It is defined per paragraph 0042 as the wavelength path between two adjacent nodes (of the plural hops of each path in e.g., fig. 2(a)), and it’s role in paragraph 0047, equation 2, is C, the bandwidth of each such wavelength link, and Min(C(Piuv)), the minimum cost function value of all such wavelength links.
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 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 NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634