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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument with respect to dependent claims 8 and 19 states that Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 8 is improper and should be withdrawn. While (i) Smith may teach a second NG and (ii) Singh may teach different use cases, those two references do not teach or even suggest two different threshold values for two different use cases.
In response.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Smith expressly teaches multiple, distinct threshold values for network entities. Smith discloses (para. [0044], [0100], [0105], [0107] and [0114]), a first network node (first eNodeB) and second network node second eNodeB) which corresponds to first NG and second NG. Further, monitoring network activity (e.g. Congestion, resources usage) against two or more threshold and a plurality of thresholds including a first threshold value a second threshold value, a third threshold value and a fourth threshold value with progressive values (e.g. 50%, 75%, 85%, 95% resource usage). This establishes that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that different gateways can and should have different threshold values depending on their role or load.
In addition, Singh explicitly teaches different use cases with different thresholds. Singh discloses, para [0028],[0032] and [0036]-0037], that “the first and second NGs correspond to different use causes” and that threshold values are chosen “based on certain performance characteristics or capacities” Singh further describes a distributed file system with “a first threshold, second threshold and third threshold” used for classifying data objects differently depending on size. This directly teaches the concept of trailering threshold to different operational contexts- which is exactly what claim 8 requires. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply Smith’s multiple- threshold frame work to Singh’s different use case gateways to optimize resource allocation per gateway type (e.g., gateway handling real-time traffic may have a lower congestion threshold than a gateway handling batch data). As recited in claims 1 and 7, Agarwal provides the threshold -base resource allocation, Jindal taches resources are allocated or new gateway is instantiated when resource utilization exceeds a threshold, Smith provides multiple thresholds per network entity and Singh provides different use cases with different operational parameters. Therefore, for the above reasons, Examiner believed that rejection of the last Office action was proper and within their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See MPEP 2111 [R-l] Interpretation of Claims-Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
Applicant argument with respect to dependent claims 9 and 20 states that the Applicant submits that the rejection of claim 9 is improper and should be withdrawn. While Singh may teach different use cases, Singh does not teach or even suggest using different weight values for different congestion scores.
In response.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. Agarwal provides the weighted sum frame work with adjustable weights, congestion/health scores are computed as weighted sum of metrics and that weight are assigned to different metrics (see para. [0001], [0085] [0111]-[0115] [0134] and [0179]). Smith teaches (see para. [0044] [0105] [0107], [0114]) that a first and second network nodes that are monitored against different threshold sets and network activity profiles. Singh further discloses the first and second NGs correspond to different use cases (see Singh [0028], 0032],[0036]-[0037]). A gateway handling real-time VoIP (use case A) would prioritize latency – so the latency metric should receive higher weight. A gateway handling bulk data transfer (use case B) would prioritize throughput – so the packets process per second or bandwidth utilizing metric should receive a higher weight. Therefore, the combination of Agarwal (weighted sum with adjustable wight), Smith (node specific parameterization) and Singh (different use cases) yields exactly what claim 9 recites: different weight values for different NGs based on their different use cases. One would have been motivated to tailor the weight values to the operation requirement of each NG to achieve optimized congestion and resource allocation. Therefore, the rejection is properly sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
7. 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 1,6,10-12,17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (US 20240205127 A1) hereinafter Agarwal Jindal et al. (US 20240022452 A1) hereinafter Jindal.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Agarwal discloses managing a first network gateway (NG) (see Figs 20,25-26), the method comprising:
receiving different network metrics from the first NG [0001], [0085] an edge gateway segregates an internal network from an external network. Edge gateways are often implemented as hardware appliances using application or as software appliances executing on computers with commodity central processing units (CPUs). As the edge gateway serves as the ingress and egress node of a network to let traffic in and out of the network, monitoring the edge gateway's health is critical. For instance, it is critical to monitor the CPU usage of an edge gateway to ensure that the edge gateway does not get overloaded with traffic (which can lead to the edge gateway dropping traffic). [AB] storing operational data for network elements in a software-defined network (SDN). At metrics manager of a framework for collecting, aggregating, and storing the operational data for the SDN, the method receives, during a particular time period, a primary set of metrics collected from at least one SDN network element… [0179] the process 2000 begins by receiving (at 2005) different sets of one or more metrics associated with one or more network elements of the SDN. In some embodiments, each received set of metrics includes metrics of a same set of one or more metrics types, and different sets of metrics represent metric values for the set of metric types at different times. For instance, the metrics manager can receive different latency metrics for a particular network element with the latency metric measuring the latency of the particular network element at a different time);
generating a first congestion score based on a weighted sum of the network metrics para (para. [0111]-[0115] a metric group may consist of only individual metrics as members, or may also include another metric group as a member. For example, members of a disk metric group may include latency
metrics, disk error metrics, and partition disk-usage metrics. Members of an edge appliance group may include a disk metric group, a CPU metric group, and a memory metric group. Members of an edge health group may include an edge appliance metric group and CCP connection status metrics. [0134] the process 1200 computes (at 1210) a health score for each PFE implementing the LFE. The health analytics manager computes a secondary health score for each PFE in order to quantify the health of the PFEs individually. For each PFE, the health analytics manager computes normalized metric values for each of the PFE's metrics, and sums these values based on weights assigned to the metrics. For instance, for a particular PFE, the health analytics manager may compute normalized metric
values of the particular PFE's metrics related to its latency (i.e. congestion), its number of packets processed per second, its connection status to other PFEs in the network, etc., to compute the health score for the PFE).
Agarwal may not explicitly disclose if the first congestion score is determined to exceed a first threshold value, then allocating one or more additional network resources for the first NG.
However, Jindal discloses if the first congestion score is determined to exceed a first threshold value, then allocating one or more additional network resources for the first NG (para. [0052] the gateway may continuously, or at regular intervals, receive information related to utilization of computing resources on all gateways. The manager may determine based on analyzing the gateway resource utilization information whether a resource alert has occurred, such as based on whether utilization of one or more types of computing resources at one or more gateways exceeds a threshold. For example, a resource alert may be triggered when one or more utilizations, e.g., processor utilization, networking utilization, and/or memory utilization, exceeds a particular threshold, e.g., 80%, on average over some period of time such as 5 minutes. [0050] … an alert is generated indicating that system resources have been exhausted. Furthermore, at step 414, the VPN session may be configured on the default gateway. An administrator may address the exhaustion alert by, for example, allocating additional resources from one or more physical computing devices in the data center for use by the existing gateways of the data center, or by instantiating new gateways and hence “scale-out” the gateway cluster).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal and include if the first congestion score is determined to exceed a first threshold value, then allocating one or more additional network resources for the first NG using the teaching of Jindal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize gateway performance through congestion avoidance and cluster scaling.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Agarwal further discloses wherein the network metrics comprise user density, application bit rate, average latency, average jitter, and available bandwidth ( para. [0095], [0105] metrics related to the management plane 310 include (1) how much time (i.e., latency) [0135] the particular PFE's metrics related to its latency, its number of packets processed per second, its connection status to other PFEs in the network, etc., to compute the health score for the PFE).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, claim 1 is incorporated. Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein allocating the one or more additional network resources for the first NG involves de-allocating one or more existing network resources from one or more other NGs. However, Jindal discloses wherein allocating the one or more additional network resources for the first NG involves de-allocating one or more existing network resources from one or more other NGs (para. [0500] an administrator may address the exhaustion alert by, for example, allocating additional resources from one or more physical computing devices in the data center for use by the existing gateways of the data center)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal and include wherein allocating the one or more additional network resources for the first NG involves de-allocating one or more existing network resources from one or more other NGs using the teaching of Jindal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize gateway performance through congestion avoidance and cluster scaling.
Regarding claims 11 and 22, claim 10 is incorporated. Agarwal may not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more other NGs have congestion scores that do not exceed their threshold values. However, Jindal discloses wherein the one or more other NGs have congestion scores that do not exceed their threshold values (para. [0053] If system resources are not completely exhausted, then the operations continue at step 486. At step 486, the manager rebalances and/or reconciles all active VPN sessions based on the existing VPN sessions across all gateways).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal and include wherein the one or more other NGs have congestion scores that do not exceed their threshold values using the teaching of Jindal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize gateway performance through congestion avoidance and cluster scaling.
Regarding claim 23, claim 12 is incorporated. Agarwal further discloses
wherein the network is a software-defined network (SDN) ([AB] storing operational data for network elements in a software-defined network (SDN). At metrics manager of a framework for collecting, aggregating, and storing the operational data for the SDN, the method receives, during a particular time period, a primary set of metrics collected from at least one SDN network element… [0179] the process 2000 begins by receiving (at 2005) different sets of one or more metrics associated with one or more network elements of the SDN).
Regarding claim 24, claim 1 is incorporated. Agarwal further discloses
wherein the network is a software-defined network (SDN) ([AB] storing operational data for network elements in a software-defined network (SDN). At metrics manager of a framework for collecting, aggregating, and storing the operational data for the SDN, the method receives, during a particular time period, a primary set of metrics collected from at least one SDN network element… [0179] the process 2000 begins by receiving (at 2005) different sets of one or more metrics associated with one or more network elements of the SDN).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. in view of Jindal et al. and further in view of Wang et al. (US 11637753 B1)
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Agarwal discloses metrics comprises latency (see para. [0095], [0105] metrics related to the management plane 310 include (1) how much time (i.e., latency)). Agarwal in view of Jindal may not explicitly disclose wherein the network metrics comprise two or more of user density, application bit rate, average latency, average jitter, and available bandwidth. However, Wang discloses wherein the network metrics comprise two or more of user density, application bit rate, average latency, average jitter, and available bandwidth (col. 11 lines 19-40 SLA parameters may be included in an SLA metric profile that is associated with or otherwise part of an SLA profile. SLA parameters may include parameters such as throughput, latency, jitter, jitter type, packet loss, round trip delay, time to first packet, average session length, packet retransmission rate, or other performance metrics for traffic (which correlate and correspond to performance metrics for a WAN link that carries such traffic). Col. 14-line 23-42 Performance characteristics can include throughput, latency, jitter, jitter type, packet loss, round trip delay, time to first packet, average session length, packet retransmission rate, or other performance metrics for traffic (which correlate and correspond to performance metrics for a WAN link that carries such traffic). Throughput may refer to the amount of data sent upstream or received downstream by a site during a time period. Latency is an amount of time taken by a packet to travel from one designated point to another. Packet loss may be specified as a percentage of packets dropped by the network to manage congestion. Jitter is a difference between the maximum and minimum round-trip times of a packet. Average session length is the average time period that a session or application is active. Packet retransmission rate may be specified as a measurement of the number of times a packet had to be retransmitted to its destination etc. Service characteristics can include link bandwidth, maximum transmission unit (MTU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal in view of Jindal and include wherein the network metrics comprise two or more of user density, application bit rate, average latency, average jitter, and available bandwidth using the teaching of Jindal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to establish connection quickly and efficiently over a WAN.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. in view of Jindal et al. and further in view of Smith (US 20130072146 A1)
Regarding claims 7 and 18, claim 1 is incorporated. Agarwal in view of Jindal discloses receiving different network metrics from a first NG of the SDN; generating a first congestion score based on a weighted sum of the network metrics from the second NG; and if the first congestion score is determined to exceed a first threshold value, then allocating one or more additional network resources for the first NG. as recited in claim 1 above. Agarwal in view of Jindal may not explicitly disclose second NG, second congestion NG and second threshold. However, Smith discloses disclose second NG, second congestion NG and second threshold (para. [0044] The switch on wheels sends and receives communication signals from a plurality of mobile devices 101 and serves as a gateway portal to the rest of the conventional communications infrastructure. Communications between the switch on wheels and a mobile device 101… [0100] The first eNodeB 904a may be configured to monitor network activity (e.g., call volume, resource usage, congestion, number of active connections, etc.) to determine whether the network activity exceeds two or more thresholds [0105] The first eNodeB 1004a may be configured to monitor network activity (e.g., call volume, etc.) to determine whether the network activity exceeds any one of a plurality of thresholds. The plurality of thresholds may include any number of thresholds and each threshold may store any value relating to any measurable network activity or event (congestion, bandwidth, usage trends, availability of resources, QoS, etc.). [0107], [0114] the plurality of thresholds may include a series of progressive threshold values. For example, the plurality of thresholds may include a first threshold value that is exceeded when 50% of the network resources are in use, a second threshold value that is exceeded when 75% of the network resources are in use, a third threshold value that is exceeded when 85% of the network resources are in use, a fourth threshold value that is exceeded when 95% of the network resources are in use, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal in view of Jindal and include second NG, second congestion NG and second threshold using the teaching of Jindal. One would have been motivated to do so in order to adapt quickly changing network condition and ensure efficient resource allocation.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. in view of Jindal et al. in view of Smith and further in view of Singh et al. (US 20230195713 A1) hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, claim 7 is incorporated. Agarwal, Jindal and Smith may not explicitly disclose wherein: the first and second NGs correspond to different use cases; and the first threshold value for the first NG is different from the second threshold value for the second NG. However, Singh discloses wherein: the first and second NGs correspond to different use cases; and the first threshold value for the first NG is different from the second threshold value for the second NG (para. [0032] The network may be a private network or a public network and may be implemented as a wired network, a wireless network, or a combination of a wired and wireless network. As will be explained, the gateway 202 may receive one or multiple client requests from the client device 206, in response to which data objects may be accessed, modified, or created within the distributed file system 204. [0028] The system 102, in response to the client request, may determine whether the first data object which is to be created is of a size which is less than a first threshold. In an example, the first threshold may be 100 bytes. It may be noted that other example values of the first threshold are also possible. In an example, the choice of the value of the first threshold may be based on certain performance characteristics or capacities of the distributed file system. [0036]-[0037] The distributed file system 204 may further include threshold(s) 220. In an example, the threshold(s) 220 may include values defining a first threshold, second threshold, and a third threshold. Other examples may utilize more or fewer thresholds. The first threshold, second threshold, and a third threshold may be retrieved and utilized by the object engine 216 for classifying the data object as a first data object (e.g., a tiny object), a second data object (e.g., a small data object), a third data object (e.g., a medium-sized data object), or a fourth data object (e.g., large data object), depending on their size, see also response to argument above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Agarwal, Jindal and Smith and include wherein: the first and second NGs correspond to different use cases; and the first threshold value for the first NG is different from the second threshold value for the second NG using the teaching of Singh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a cloud computing model as a service delivery model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service.
Regarding claim 9 and 20, claim 8 is incorporated. Agarwal, Jindal, Smith and Singh disclose one or more weight values used to generate the first congestion score as recited in claim 1 above. Singh further discloses wherein: the first and second NGs correspond to different use cases (see Singh [0028], 0032],[0036]-[0037]). generate the first congestion score are different from one or more corresponding to generate the second congestion score (see Smith [0044] [0105] [0107], [0114]), see also response to argument above)
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 2-4and 13-15 are 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
13. 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Mendaye whose telephone number is (571)272-2603. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 7:00 am-5:00pm EST. 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, Ario Etienne can be reached on (571) 272-4001. 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.
07/13/2026
/KIDEST MENDAYE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights