DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
There are no new, nor canceled claims.
Applicant’s prior-art arguments are respectfully found to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, this Office action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant requested an examiner interview within the 12/3/2025 response to Non-final Office action mailed 9/3/2025. Examiner called and left a message at 8:11 am on Wednesday, 12/17/2025 just after the application was placed into his docket and after reviewing Applicant's arguments. (See attachment) During examiner's phone message, examiner requested that Attorney Monajemi submit his interview agenda. Once received, a mutually agreeable time would be determined to conduct the interview. As of January 6, 2026 at 10:00am, Attorney Monajemi has not returned the examiner's call nor sent an interview agenda. Therefore, the applicant-requested interview was not conducted.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) have been fully considered but are respectfully found to be not persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) has been maintained.
As to the prior-art arguments, Examiner notes that it s known in the art that a signal processor is a dataplane. (See attachment) Reference: https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+a+signal+processor+a+dataplane%3F&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1122US1122&oq=Is+a+signal+processor+a+dataplane%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgYIARBFGDvSAQgxNjYzajBqMagCCLACAfEFb4h7VC4GRhU&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that Black does not teach dataplanes is not persuasive.
Next the argument that Black does not teach two separate dataplanes is also unpersuasive because Black teaches that a digital twin signal processor {simulation shadow dataplane} is being used to test software updates prior to making changes to the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device. (See citations in the Claim 1 rejection below)
Next, both the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device and digital twin signal processors are working with the identical inputs {ingress data packets}. Otherwise, any testing of new logic would not be an accurate simulation and may not yield accurate results. However, the digital twin is executing proposed logic changes to see if the logic changes will improve performance of the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device before implementing the logic changes in the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device. (See citations in the Claim 1 rejection below)
Examiner recommendation to advance prosecution:
Figure 5 and associated text at ¶ [0117] in Applicant’s originally-filed specification depict and describe that element 500 comprises two apparently hardware or hardware/software combination devices (DPUs) in a dual dataplane architecture 500 for a network appliance. Black does not teach this architecture as its shadow dataplane equivalent is virtual, and therefore further limiting this feature into the independent claims will advance prosecution. Further search would be required before determining allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0376912 A1 (Black et al.).
As to Claims 1 and 20, Black et al. anticipate a method of modifying a network component without interrupting a network function thereof (Black et al. disclose the method - ¶ [0017]); and a computing apparatus (Black et al. disclose the processor and memory), comprising:
performing a network function using a network component by executing a first version of logic instructions in a primary dataplane of the network component, wherein the network function comprises processing ingress data packets to determine egress data packets (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]);
generating verification criteria for verifying a second version of the logic instructions by comparing a performance of the second version to a performance of the first version (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]);
implementing the second version of the logic instructions on a shadow dataplane of the network component while the network component is deployed in a production environment, and the shadow dataplane processing ingress data packets are identical to the ingress data packets processed by the primary dataplane, which is executing the first version of the logic instructions (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]); and
upgrading the network component to perform the network function by outputting the egress data packets generated using the second version of the logic instructions, when the second version of the logic instructions has satisfied the verification criteria (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 2, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, further comprising:
ceasing to implement the second version of the logic instructions on the shadow dataplane of the network component, when the second version of the logic instructions is determined to not satisfy the verification criteria; and signaling to a network engineer a failure of the second version of the logic instructions to satisfy the verification criteria and one or more reasons for the failure (Black et al. - ¶ [0116]).
As to Claim 3, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the second version of the logic instructions satisfies the verification criteria by comparing a performance of the shadow dataplane executing the second version of the logic instructions with a performance of the primary dataplane executing the first version of the logic instructions to generate a determination result indicating when the second version of the logic instructions satisfies the verification criteria (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 4, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the second version of the logic instructions satisfies the verification criteria by accumulating measurements of a performance of the primary dataplane and a performance of the primary dataplane, and using the accumulated measurements to generate a confidence metric representing a likelihood that the second version of the logic instructions either satisfies the verification criteria, fails to satisfy the verification criteria, or is indeterminant with respect to the verification criteria (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane – data packet routing} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]);
continuing to accumulate the measurements of the performance, when the confidence metric is indeterminant with respect to the verification criteria (Black et al. - ¶ [0039]);
signaling that the second version of the logic instructions passes a verification test when the confidence metric indicates that a predefined likelihood for satisfying the verification criteria has been exceeded (Black et al. recite: “Additionally, one or more updates, such as software, firmware, or the like, may first be provisioned at the digital twin element for modeling, simulation and testing. Once the modeled simulation and test results are approved for the digital twin element, the one or more updates may be provisioned on the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device.” Simulation results are a form of metadata, said metadata communicates to the network engineer, or person or device responsible for determining corrective action, that the results are approved or not approved - ¶ [0035]); and
signaling that the second version of the logic instructions fails the verification test when the confidence metric indicates that a predefined likelihood for failing the verification criteria has been met or when a time-out period has been exceeded and the confidence metric remains indeterminant with respect to the verification criteria (Black et al. recite: “Additionally, one or more updates, such as software, firmware, or the like, may first be provisioned at the digital twin element for modeling, simulation and testing. Once the modeled simulation and test results are approved for the digital twin element, the one or more updates may be provisioned on the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device.” Simulation results are a form of metadata, said metadata communicates to the network engineer, or person or device responsible for determining corrective action, that the results are approved or not approved - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 5, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein implementing the second version of the logic instructions on the shadow dataplane and upgrading the network component to perform the network function using the second version of the logic instructions is performed during a time when the network component is being used in a network to perform the network function and while results from the network function are being relied on by users of the network (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 6, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein implementing the second version of the logic instructions on the shadow dataplane and upgrading the network component to perform the network function using the second version of the logic instructions is performed without interrupting a data-packet flow of transmitting the egress data packets output from the network component (Black et al. - ¶ [0116]).
As to Claim 7, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, wherein generating the verification criteria comprises:
testing the second version of the logic instructions in a testing environment that is not the production environment to generate testing data (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]); and
generating the verification criteria based on the testing data (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 8, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 7, wherein generating the verification criteria comprises:
analyzing the testing data to generate metadata indicating respective predefined ranges for relative performance values between the first version of the logic instructions and the second version of the logic instructions (Black et al. recite: “Additionally, one or more updates, such as software, firmware, or the like, may first be provisioned at the digital twin element for modeling, simulation and testing. Once the modeled simulation and test results are approved for the digital twin element, the one or more updates may be provisioned on the actual corresponding RF signal repeater device.” Simulation results are a form of metadata - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 9, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 8, wherein generating the verification criteria comprises:
applying the testing data or the metadata to a machine learning (ML) model that predicts the predefined ranges for the relative performance values based on a predicted likelihood of the logic instructions operating according to predefined specifications when the relative performance values are within the predefined ranges (Black et al. - ¶¶ [0039, 0118]).
As to Claim 10, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 8, wherein the performance values comprise:
a CPU usage of the first version of the logic instructions relative to the second version of the logic instructions, a memory usage of the first version of the logic instructions relative to the second version of the logic instructions, and a number of egress data packets of the first version of the logic instructions relative to the second version of the logic instructions (Black et al. disclose the comparison of key performance indicators (KPI’s) in the testing procedures - ¶¶ [0035, 0036, 0039, 0043, 0105, 0113-0116, 0119]).
As to Claim 11, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, further comprising:
operating the network component in a normal mode, after upgrading the network component, wherein, after upgrading, the normal mode comprises the shadow dataplane remaining idle without the ingress data packets being routed to the shadow dataplane and the primary dataplane processing the ingress data packets by executing the second version of the logic instructions to generate the egress data packets (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 12, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, further comprising:
operating the network component in a scale-out mode, after upgrading the network component, wherein,
after upgrading, the scale-out mode comprises:
the shadow dataplane processing a first set of the ingress data packets by executing the second version of the logic instructions to generate a first set of the egress data packets, the primary dataplane processing a second set of the ingress data packets by executing the second version of the logic instructions to generate a second set of the egress data packets, and the first set of the ingress data packets being different data packets than the second set of the ingress data packets (Black et al. - ¶ [0039]).
As to Claim 13, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, wherein:
the network component is either implemented on one or more data processing units (DPUs) or implemented as software executed on one or more central processing units (CPUs) (Black et al. – Fig. 2A, elements 209).
As to Claim 14, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, wherein:
the network component is configured in an embedded device of a network edge (Black et al. - ¶ [0069]); and
the network component comprises instructions executed in a data processing unit (DPU) or an extended Berkley packet filter (Black et al. – Fig. 2B).
As to Claim 15, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first version of the logic instructions is a current network policy and the second version of the logic instructions is another network policy that is an update to the current network policy (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]), and
the verification criteria include that the another network policy provides, relative to the current network policy, a predefined range of data-packet throughput, a predefined range of data-packet latency, a predefined range of memory usage, and/or a predefined range of usage of computational circuitry (Black et al. - ¶ [0032]).
As to Claim 16, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1, wherein:
the first version of the logic instructions is a current networking program and the second version of the logic instructions is another networking program that is an update to the current networking program (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]), and
the verification criteria include that, relative to the current networking program, the another networking program increases a data-packet throughput and/or decrease one or more of a data-packet latency, a memory usage, and/or a usage of computational resources in the network component without adversely impacting predefined performance metric of the network component (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater, said approval based on realized improvements to the operations of the RF signal repeater - ¶¶ [0035, 0105]).
As to Claim 17, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein the verification criteria include that a number of the egress data packets generated by the first version of the logic instructions is equal to a number of the egress data packets generated by the second version of the logic instructions, when the ingress data packets received by the first version of the logic instructions are identical to the egress data packets received by the second version of the logic instructions (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
As to Claim 18, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein the verification criteria includes using a hash function to compare the egress data packets from the primary dataplane with the egress data packets from the shadow dataplane (Black et al. - ¶¶ [0039, 0118]. Machine learning inherently uses hashing functions).
As to Claim 19, Black et al. anticipate the method of claim 1,
wherein the network function comprises data-packet filtering, load balancing, security screening, malware detection, firewall protection, data-packet routing, data- packet switching, data-packet forwarding, computing header checksums, or implementing network policies (Black et al. disclose the RF signal repeater {dataplane – data packet routing} processing signals {network function using a first version of logic} being simulated in a digital twin {shadow dataplane} to test if proposed software {logic} updates for the RF signal repeater processes the inputs and outputs {ingress and egress} such that they may be acceptable and approved {using generated verification criteria} prior to making software changes {second version} to the RF signal repeater - ¶ [0035]).
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
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 RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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 A 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444