DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Final rejection is in response to the amendment filed on 10/2/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are currently amended. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “obtaining, …, an indication of an energy saving action to be performed…” and also recites the limitation “implementing, the quality of service configuration, in advance of the entity performing the energy-saving action.” Claim 1 or its dependent claims do not specify what the energy-saving action is. In fact, the limitations in the dependent claims about the quality of service configuration, what it is or does, appear to suggest that implementing the configuration itself is an energy-saving action. Claims are not clear about the energy-saving action and the QoS configuration action, if they are distinct. Other independent claims repeat these deficiencies and are rejected. Dependent claims do not remedy the deficiency and are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fardid et al. (US 20170099210 A1, hereinafter Fardid).
Regarding claim 1, Fardid teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a device, an indication of an energy-saving action to be performed by an entity in a computer network to reduce energy consumption by the computer network, [Figure 6. 6-1, 6-2 and associated description, select a node that satisfies power efficiency criterion (indication)];
identifying, by the device, one or more peer entities in the computer network that would be affected by the entity performing the energy-saving action, [Figure 6, 6-3 and associated description, modified reference topology (of nodes)];
determining, by the device, a quality of service configuration for traffic associated with the entity and the one or more peer entities, [Figure 6, 6-4, 6-5 and associated description, using simulation applying reference traffic to the modified reference topology which suggest rerouting traffic around the node that is to be shut down and determining performance criteria is satisfied (QoS configuration for traffic)]; and
implementing, by the device, the quality of service configuration in the computer network, in advance of the entity performing the energy-saving action, [Figure 6, 6-6 and associated description, perform shutdown of the selected node in the network to implement the modified topology (QoS configuration) which suggests rerouting traffic around the node to be shut down and also suggests in real network the node is shut down after the rerouting is established to avert any routing attempts through the node to be shut down; note that the claim does not identify what the energy-saving action is and if it is different from the implementation of QoS configuration as indicated in the 112b rejection].
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above, [Figures 1-3, 4A, 4B for system elements].
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 2, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein identifying the one or more peer entities in the computer network that would be affected by the entity performing the energy-saving action comprises: using a digital twin of the computer network to identify the one or more peer entities in a topology of the computer network, [Figure 6, 6-3 reference topology of the network used in the simulation (digital twin) to determine modified reference topology].
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 5, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein further comprising: removing, by the device, the quality of service configuration from the computer network, when entity reverses the energy-saving action, [see Figure 7C and Par.[0086] where it is described that the selected node that was part shutdown is reactivated].
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected as above
Regarding claim 7, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, wherein the one or more peer entities comprise one or more edge nodes in the computer network, and the quality of service configuration causes the computer network to adjust how the traffic is routed, [Abstract notes energy-saving routing; see Figure 1 for edge nodes and Figure 6 as above shows the QoS configuration of one of the nodes being shut down changes the topology and therefore, underlying routing].
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 10, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, further comprising: monitoring the computer network to ensure that the quality of service configuration does not lead to a service level agreement violation for the traffic, [Par.[0035]-[0036] suggest monitoring traffic for QoS and see Figure 3].
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fardid in view of Testicioglu et al. (US 2021/0184977 A1, hereinafter Testicioglu).
Regarding claim 3, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, and does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic is low priority traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to prune the traffic;
Testicioglu, in an analogous art teaches wherein the traffic is low priority traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to prune the traffic, [Par.[0137] and elsewhere it is described that the device reduces or eliminates low priority network traffic];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fardid to add low priority traffic to the QoS configuration. The motivation/suggestion would have been to prioritize important or critical network traffic during high load so that the low priority traffic do not negatively impact a desired quality of service or user experience, [Testicioglu: Par.[0137]].
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected as above.
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fardid in view of Yang (US 2002/0114334 A1, hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 4, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic is best-effort traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to assign the traffic to a queue with a lower weighted round robin weight or mark the traffic with a low Differentiated Code Service Point precedence value, [claim is recited in the alternative];
Yang, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the traffic is best-effort traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to assign the traffic to a queue with a lower weighted round robin weight or mark the traffic with a low Differentiated Code Service Point precedence value, [Par.[0045] describes weighted round robin scheduler for best-effort traffic with different weights];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fardid to include a weighted RR scheduler. The motivation/suggestion would have been to assign different serving rates to different traffic classes that are favored or disfavored, [Yang: Abstract].
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected as above.
Regarding claim 6, Fardid teaches the method as in claim 1, does not explicitly teach wherein the traffic is high-priority traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to perform at least one of: placing the traffic in a queue with high-priority or low-latency, assigning a higher weighted round robin value to the traffic, or mark the traffic with a high Differentiated Code Service Point precedence value;
Yang, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the traffic is high-priority traffic and the quality of service configuration causes the one or more peer entities to perform at least one of: placing the traffic in a queue with high-priority or low-latency, assigning a higher weighted round robin value to the traffic, or mark the traffic with a high Differentiated Code Service Point precedence value, [Par.[0045] describes weighted round robin scheduler for best-effort traffic with different weights based on priority; higher priority traffic is assigned a higher RR weight value];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fardid to include a weighted RR scheduler. The motivation/suggestion would have been to assign different serving rates to different traffic classes that are favored or disfavored, [Yang: Abstract].
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected as above.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fardid in view of Levillain et al. (US 2003/0107590 A1, hereinafter Levillain).
Regarding claim 8, Fardid teaches the method of claim 1, and does not explicitly teach wherein the device determines the quality of service configuration based in part on a policy specified via a user interface;
Levillain in an analogous art, teaches wherein the device determines the quality of service configuration based in part on a policy specified via a user interface, [Par.[0048]-[0049] and Figures 4 and 5 describe user input to define QoS policy for a specific subnet];
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fardid to include QoS policy creation. The motivation/suggestion would have been to facilitate for a user to manage a policy-based network for provisioning QoS for video devices, including multimedia devices, and data devices serving high-priority applications, [Levillain: Par.[0044]-[0047]].
Regarding claim 9, Fardid teaches the method of claim 8, and Levillain teaches wherein the policy excludes a portion of the computer network from being reconfigured, [dependent claim is obvious over Fardid in view of Levillain for the same reasons as in claim 7; Par.[0048]-[0049] and Figures 4 and 5 describe user input to define QoS policy for a specific subnet and excludes other portions of the computer network].
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected as above.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has not amended the independent claims. The amended dependent claims overcome some of the 112b rejection from the previous action. Previous 112b rejection for the independent claims is maintained because the argument is not persuasive. Without specifying a distinction between the claim terms identified there, it is not possible to fully interpret the claim limitations in light of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the primary reference does not teach determining a QoS configuration. However, in the primary reference Fardid, the shutdown of a node is a energy-saving action, and rerouting traffic prior to its shutdown is the determination of the QoS configuration. In fact, claim 7 precisely recites this very feature that the QoS configuration results in adjustments to traffic routing. The line between rerouting traffic because of QoS configuration or QoS configuration resulting in rerouting traffic is not clear. The topology changes (determined QoS configuration) as a result of an energy saving action (shutdown of a node) necessitating in a rerouting of traffic. The term QoS configuration is broad and any topology of nodes that is restricted maybe interpreted as a QoS configuration. Equally broad is the term energy saving action when the claim does not specify what it is and how it will affect the entities – shutting down of a node to conserve energy qualifies as such an action. As indicated in the interview discussion, make clear the energy saving action and how that determines a QoS configuration to overcome the current interpretation of the claim limitations.
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 PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441