DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, and 19-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 and §101.
However, Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument, see pp. 4, “…the network performance information in Zheng corresponds to the information of one path including multiple links…”, even if so, the network performance information is simply an aggregate of the performance of multiple links along the one path, and thus read on the limitation “acquiring slice-related resource information for each link in a network”. Secondly, at least in some embodiments, Zheng provides evidence that the network performance information of the at least one path does reflect each link individually in the path (See for example, ¶0133-¶0134, “the controller determines whether a bandwidth utilization rate of one or more paths in the network slice reaches the threshold based on network performance information of the one or more paths in the advertisement message sent by the network device… In some embodiments, the bandwidth utilization rate of the first path is a bandwidth utilization rate of one or more links on the first path. For example, when the controller determines that a bandwidth utilization rate of one link on the first path reaches the threshold”. Also see ¶0183, “A controller collects bandwidth utilization rates of all links in a network slice.” This is also reflected in the priority document CN 202110281996.8 (CN-115086218-A), see pp. 9 and 11, of the machine translation) Thus, even if the claims were limited to “separately acquiring slice-associated resource information for each link in a network”, Zheng would still appear to anticipate the limitation.
With respect to Applicant’s further argument, see pp. 4, “Second, Zheng relates to a scenario where, after a path is established, a network device sends information such as which slice the path belongs to (for example, path A belongs to slice 1) and the network performance information of the path to the controller. By contrast, amended claim 1 is designed to facilitate the management and control of slices in the network.” Specifically, a network node acquires slice-associated resource information for each link in the network and transmits the slice-associated resource information to the controller, thereby enabling the controller to implement management and control of slices in the network. This is a scheme for determining how to allocate resources to slices before a path is established. For example, it is assumed that the physical bandwidth of link 1 is 100 G, the maximum reserved bandwidth allocated to slice 1 is 70 G, and the maximum reserved bandwidth allocated to slice 2 is 30 G (see Application, 1 [0113])”, respectfully, such a distinction is not made by the claimed invention. For example, the claim does not recite any sort of timing (e.g., before/after a path is established) regarding when the slice-associate resource information is acquired. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s third point, see pp. 4, – “according to the disclosure of paragraphs [0118] to [0120] of Zheng, the network performance information-which includes a bandwidth, a delay, a message loss rate, a jitter, and the like of the path-reflects the current performance of an end-to-end path, which is the combined effect of all links on the path. However, the network performance information does not reflect the resources corresponding to each or any individual link on the path – is similar to their first argument. Thus, for reasons addressed above, Applicant’s further argument is not persuasive.
Finally, with respect to Applicant’s last argument, see pp. 5, – “Fourth, Zheng addresses the problem that information about a network slice on a control plane is often inconsistent with information about the network slice on a forwarding plane, and accordingly proposes a technical solution to help improve an effect of controlling a message forwarding path by the controller. By contrast, amended claim 1 solves the problem that it is not convenient to manage and control slices in the network based on the existing topological information. With amended claim 1, the slice-associated resource information for each link in the network is acquired and transmitted so that management and control of the slices by the controller (such as performing resource allocation) can be facilitated by notifying the controller of the acquired slice-associated resource information for each link in the network”, however, respectfully, this appears to be the same reason that the network performance information for each path/link is advertised to the controller in Zheng, i.e., path optimization (see ¶0132).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 13-14, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US 2024/007399)(“Zheng”).
As per claim 1, Zheng teaches an information transmission method, the method being applied to a network node (see Fig. 1, ref. 21) and comprising:
acquiring slice-associated resource information for each link in a network (i.e., path information for one or more paths in a network slice, see Fig. 2, ref. S201, and ¶0112, also see ¶0120, where the path/network performance information (i.e., slice-associated resource information) is acquired by the network device/node, prior to the generating of the advertisement message), also see for example, ¶0133-¶0134 and ¶0183, which further suggests the path resource information is of one or more links in a path, i.e., “the controller determines whether a bandwidth utilization rate of one or more paths in the network slice reaches the threshold based on network performance information of the one or more paths in the advertisement message sent by the network device… In some embodiments, the bandwidth utilization rate of the first path is a bandwidth utilization rate of one or more links on the first path. For example, when the controller determines that a bandwidth utilization rate of one link on the first path reaches the threshold”, “A controller collects bandwidth utilization rates of all links in a network slice.”); and
transmitting the resource information (see Fig. 2, ref. S202) through border gateway protocol link state (BGP-LS)(see ¶0111);
wherein the resource information comprises at least one of:
a maximum reserved link bandwidth, an available bandwidth, a used bandwidth, an average link delay, a link packet loss rate, a maximum link delay, or a minimum link delay (see ¶0118-120, i.e., network performance information including bandwidth, delay, message loss rate, jitter, and the like of the path, also see for example, ¶0133-¶0134 and ¶0183, which as noted above anticipates the network performance information being of individual links in the path) (See also Figs. 1 and 2, and pp. 8, 9, and 11, of machine translation to priority document CN 202110281996.8 (CN-115086218-A), with a foreign filing date of 03/16/2021).
As per claim 3, Zheng further teaches wherein the resource information is associated with slice information (network slice, see ¶0112).
As per claim 4, Zheng further teaches wherein the slice information comprises at least one of: … a virtual network identifier (i.e., a slice identifier, see ¶0012, which implies a virtual network).
Claims 8, 13-14, and 19-24 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 3, and 4 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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 of this title, 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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in further view of Atlas et al. (US 9,270,426)(“Atlas”).
As per claims 5 and 15, Zheng further teaches wherein … the slice information (i.e., identifier of the network slice) is carried in a link attribute type-length-value (TLV) extended in link network-layer reachability information (NLRI) (see ¶0027) (See also pp. 9, of machine translation to priority document CN 202110281996.8 (CN-115086218-A), with a filing date of 03/16/2021, which corresponds to ¶0027 of Zheng, i.e., “Specifically, the identifier of the network slice is carried in the type-length-value (type-length-value, TLV) of SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor of the BGP-LS packet”).
However, Zheng does not expressly the slice-associated resource information (i.e., “information about a path”) encoded in a TLV of the BGP-LS advertisement.
Nevertheless, advertising link state information in a TLV was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Atlas, col. 11, lines 31-51 - “For example, routers 12, 20 may advertise a maximum link bandwidth, a residual bandwidth, or a currently available bandwidth for the links 22 of network 14 using a type-length-value (TLV) field of a link-state advertisement”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zheng with the teachings of Atlas for including the path information within a TLV of the BGP-LS advertisement. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provide a standard means for locating the path information in the BGP-LS message in Zheng, and thus supporting interoperability.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Ginsberg, L., et al. "RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions." RFC Editor, March 2019, www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570. (“RFC 8570”).
As per claims 6 and 16, Zheng further teaches wherein the slice information (i.e., identifier of the network slice) is carried in a link attribute TLV extended in link NLRI (see ¶0027).
As per claim 6, Zheng does not expressly teach the resource information is carried in a sub-TLV of the link attribute TLV extended in the link NLRI.
Nevertheless, carrying link attributes (e.g., path information) in a sub-TLV field of a BGP-LS advertisement was well-known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example RFC 8570, sec. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Zheng, based on the teachings of RFC 8570, for including the acquired path information within the sub-TLV of the BGP-LS advertisement. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to support the RFC 8570 standard, and thus promote system interoperability.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Ding et al. (US 11,316,774)(“Ding”).
As per claims 7 and 9, Zheng does not expressly teach in a case where network topological information changes, acquiring changed resource information and transmitting the changed resource information.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network monitoring, Ding teaches in a case where network topological information changes, acquiring changed resource information and transmitting the changed resource information (see col. 7, line 57 - col. 8, line 3, i.e., “…unless network topology changes”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zheng for updating resource information the slice-associated resource information (i.e., “information about a path”) in response to network topology changes. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to keep the controller in Zheng up-to-date regarding path information following network topology changes.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Alberi-Morel et al. (EP 3306987)(“Alberi-Morel”).
As per claim 10, Zheng does not expressly teach acquiring a query request; and searching for resource information corresponding to the query request.
As per claim 11, Zheng does not expressly teach acquiring a deployment request; searching for resource information corresponding to the deployment request; and completing resource allocation based on the searched resource information.
Nevertheless, in the same art of network management, Alberi-Morel teaches a controller (i.e., network slice orchestrator) acquiring a deployment/query request from a tenant, searching resource information corresponding to deployment/query the request, and finally completing resource allocation based on the searched resource information (see ¶0026, i.e., “When instantiating a slice upon request from a tenant, a network slice orchestrator can use the API to get the network topology and available resource for this type of slice and then allocate the resource to the slice.” Also see ¶0040)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Zheng with the processes taught by Alberi-Morel. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to provision network slices upon request.
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 BRENDAN HIGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Wing Chan can be reached on (571) 272-7493. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441