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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024 and 12/09/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 4-8, 15, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 4, the term “and/or” recited in lines 3 and 5 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the traffic prediction result, the SLA prediction result, or both are obtained for each of the plurality of flow groups. In addition, it is unclear as to whether the traffic prediction result comprises one or more traffic parameters, the SLA prediction result comprises one or more quality of service performance indicator, or both are true. For examination purposes, each instance of the term will be interpreted as “or.”
Regarding claim 5, the term “and/or” recited in line 5 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the traffic prediction result, the SLA prediction result, or both are used to make the routing decision for each of the plurality of flow groups. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “or.”
Regarding claim 6, the term “and/or” recited in line 6 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the traffic prediction model is selected, the traffic prediction model is trained, or both are true. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “or.”
Regarding claims 7-8, the claims are rejected for depending on claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the term “and/or” recited in line 5 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the traffic prediction result, the SLA prediction result, or both are used to make the load balancing decision. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “or.”
Regarding claim 18, the term “and/or” recited in line 3 renders the scope of the claim indefinite. To be more specific, it is unclear as to whether the one or more traffic prediction parameters, the one or more SLA prediction parameters, or both are provided to the network entity. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindan et al. (US 2021/0234714 A1), hereinafter referred to as Govindan, in view of Jaska et al. (US 2015/0016253 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jaska.
Regarding claim 1, Govindan teaches a network entity for routing a plurality of flow groups in a network (Govindan – Paragraph [0018], note in a LISP network, for example, the centralized network controller may be implemented a combined map server/resolver to deterministically assign, and reassign, a large number of flows of an overlay multicast group), the network entity comprising:
a memory (Govindan – Paragraph [0022], note a system is disclosed, a memory having instructions stored thereon); and
a processor, coupled with the memory (Govindan – Paragraph [0022], note a system is disclosed, execution of the instructions by the processor), configured to:
obtain policy information from a controller, wherein the policy information comprises one or more global intents for each of the plurality of flow groups, wherein each global intent is indicative of one requirement of a network operator (Govindan – Paragraph [0013], note centralized network controller to deterministically assign, and reassign, underlay multicast groups according to one or more policies and/or parameterized intent of the network administrator; Paragraph [0020], note “intent” generally refers to operational intent or goals that can be translated into policies that can be installed, activated, maintained, and/or monitored in an automated and consistent manner across a network; Paragraph [0036], note receiving, at a map server/map resolver controller (centralized network controller, see Paragraph [0049]) of LISP network, policies and/or parameterized intent of a network administrator from a controller of the LISP network); and
make one or more routing decisions for the plurality of flow groups based on the policy information (Govindan – Paragraph [0018], note the centralized network controller and its corresponding operation can be used to engineer multicast traffic (e.g., underlay multicast groups, see Paragraph [0013]) according to policies and/or intent of the network administrator to enforce and/or manage service level agreement; Paragraph [0036], note deterministically determining, at the map server/map resolver controller, an underlay multicast group comprising the set of ingress and/or egress tunnel routers or a portion thereof, for the given overlay multicast stream using the received policies and/or parameterized intent, and transmitting, from the map server/map resolver controller, to the set of ingress and/or egress tunnel routers, the determined underlay multicast group for the given overlay multicast stream).
Govindan does not teach wherein the policy information comprises information about at least one service level agreement (SLA) requirement for each of the plurality of flow groups.
In an analogous art, Jaska teaches wherein the policy information comprises information about at least one service level agreement (SLA) requirement for each of the plurality of flow groups (Jaska – Paragraph [0029], note network shaping policies can also be defined at any suitable level, for example, at a network level (e.g., for all stream pipes carrying a certain type of traffic across the entire network, for network-wide congestion levels, etc.), at a subscriber level (e.g., each subscriber is treated according to a subscription level, a service-level agreement (SLA), device capabilities, usage trends, etc.), or at a subscriber cluster level, "subscriber cluster" can refer to a network resource grouping such as a multicast group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jaska into Govindan in order to associate network/traffic policies with service-level agreements for multicast groups, improving flexibility of usage of shared network resources (Jaska – Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches wherein each global intent is indicative of a requirement of the network operator related to at least one of the following:
link utilization, financial cost, quality, congestion, safety, stability, and performance (Govindan – Paragraph [0021], note using an intent of the network administrator to meet a network operational objective or purpose, e.g., to improve network or network device efficiency or operation, engineer multicast traffic, derive and enforce site-specific or time-specific network policies, quarantine suspicious traffic, and combinations thereof).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches wherein the policy information further comprises information about a set of overlay links that can be used for routing the plurality of flow groups, wherein each overlay link comprises a plurality of underlay links (Govindan – Paragraph [0036], note receiving, at the map server/map resolver controller, from a set of ingress and/or egress tunnel routers (xTRs) of the LISP network, requests for a group address associated with a given overlay multicast stream defined by a multicast group in another network, wherein each request includes information selected from the group consisting of overlay G information, policy information, etc., deterministically determining, at the map server/map resolver controller, an underlay multicast group comprising the set of ingress and/or egress tunnel routers or a portion thereof, for the given overlay multicast stream using the received policies and/or parameterized intent).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches wherein each global intent is associated with a priority or a weight indicating an order of importance of that global intent in the one or more global intents (Govindan – Paragraph [0025], note the policies and/or parameterized intent of a network administrator includes at least one of an optimization priority policy or a set of parameters associated therewith (e.g., optimize for bandwidth over TCAM utilization); Paragraph [0051], note implement the obtained network operator's intents in a requests or as a set of user tunable parameters; Paragraph [0052], note user tunable parameters may include, but not limited to preferred optimization priority (e.g. optimize for bandwidth over TCAM utilization)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches the processor further configured to:
provide information about whether the network entity supports a particular global intent to the controller (Govindan – Paragraph [0025], note the policies and/or parameterized intent of a network administrator includes at least one of an optimization priority policy or a set of parameters associated therewith (e.g., optimize for bandwidth over TCAM utilization), a multicast addressing scope or a set of parameters associated therewith (e.g., range of multicast addresses to be used for site-local, site-global flows and quarantined flows), a security associated policy or a set of parameters associated therewith (e.g., list of blacklisted sources, threshold limits for declaring a flow offending), a group switchover-based policy or a set of parameters associated therewith (e.g., rate information for group switchover), and a time-of-day-based policy or a set of parameters associated therewith).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches the processor further configured to:
make one or more load balancing decisions for the plurality of flow groups based on the policy information (Govindan – Paragraph [0064], note traffic engineering operation (according to policies and/or intent of the network administrator to enforce and/or manage service level agreement, see Paragraph [0018]) facilitates the reconfiguring of the network in response to changing traffic loads to achieve some operational goals, such as traffic ratios in a peering relationship (e.g., “peering ratios”), relieve congestion, balance and rebalance load, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Govindan and Jaska, specifically Govindan teaches wherein the network entity is an access router, and the network is a software-defined network (Govindan – Fig. 1; Paragraph [0043], note apply assignment, and/or reassignment, of underlay multicast traffic in other software-defined access (SDA) and/or software-defined network (SDN) implementations; Paragraph [0057], note the map server-map resolver (“MSMR”) controller 106 is a network device configured to operate as both a map server (which can perform operations of a router) and a map resolver in the context of a LISP network).
Regarding claim 17, Govindan teaches a controller for assisting of routing a plurality of flow groups in a network (Govindan – Paragraph [0036], note receiving policies and/or parameterized intent of a network administrator from a controller of the LISP network), the controller comprising:
a memory (Govindan – Paragraph [0022], note a system is disclosed, a memory having instructions stored thereon); and
a processor, coupled with the memory (Govindan – Paragraph [0022], note a system is disclosed, execution of the instructions by the processor), configured to:
provide policy information to a network entity, wherein the policy information comprises one or more global intents for each of the plurality of flow groups, wherein each global intent is indicative of one requirement of a network operator (Govindan – Paragraph [0013], note centralized network controller to deterministically assign, and reassign, underlay multicast groups according to one or more policies and/or parameterized intent of the network administrator; Paragraph [0020], note “intent” generally refers to operational intent or goals that can be translated into policies that can be installed, activated, maintained, and/or monitored in an automated and consistent manner across a network; Paragraph [0036], note receiving, at a map server/map resolver controller (centralized network controller, see Paragraph [0049]) of LISP network, policies and/or parameterized intent of a network administrator from a controller of the LISP network).
Govindan does not teach wherein the policy information comprises information about at least one service level agreement (SLA) requirement for each of the plurality of flow groups.
In an analogous art, Jaska teaches wherein the policy information comprises information about at least one service level agreement (SLA) requirement for each of the plurality of flow groups (Jaska – Paragraph [0029], note network shaping policies can also be defined at any suitable level, for example, at a network level (e.g., for all stream pipes carrying a certain type of traffic across the entire network, for network-wide congestion levels, etc.), at a subscriber level (e.g., each subscriber is treated according to a subscription level, a service-level agreement (SLA), device capabilities, usage trends, etc.), or at a subscriber cluster level, "subscriber cluster" can refer to a network resource grouping such as a multicast group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jaska into Govindan in order to associate network/traffic policies with service-level agreements for multicast groups, improving flexibility of usage of shared network resources (Jaska – Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, except the claim is written in a method claim format.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindan in view of Jaska as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0095414 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Govindan and Jaska does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a traffic prediction result or an SLA prediction result for each of the plurality of flow groups, wherein the traffic prediction result of each flow group comprises one or more traffic parameters of that flow group, or the SLA prediction result of each flow group comprises one or more quality of service performance indicator of that flow group.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a traffic prediction result or an SLA prediction result for each of the plurality of flow groups, wherein the traffic prediction result of each flow group comprises one or more traffic parameters of that flow group, or the SLA prediction result of each flow group comprises one or more quality of service performance indicator of that flow group (Wang – Paragraph [0073], note predicted traffic load, the traffic load information indicates future estimated traffic load in the multicast area(s) and/or cell(s), the traffic load information may indicate how much transmission capability is used and/or left in a cell and/or in a multicast area; Paragraph [0095], note multicast transmission(s) are determined, by the BDPFE (Big Data Process Function Entity, which is a network node/element, see Paragraph [0044]), in cells and/or multicast areas, BDPFE may use Big Data analysis results of user mobility prediction, base station coverage information and traffic load prediction results to determine multicast performing network node, each multicast group may be associated with a respective multicast area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the combination of Govindan and Jaska in order to configure multicast transmission based on traffic load information, improving efficiency of network resource utilization (Wang – Paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-11 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s dependent claims recite:
wherein the processor configured to make the one or more routing decisions for the plurality of flow groups comprises the processor further configured to: make a routing decision for each of the plurality of flow groups based on the policy information, and the traffic prediction result or the SLA prediction result of that flow group;
the processor further configured to: obtain one or more traffic prediction parameters related to the traffic prediction from the controller; and select a traffic prediction model from one or more trained models using the one or more traffic prediction parameters or train the traffic prediction model using the one or more traffic prediction parameters, wherein the traffic prediction model is configured to obtain the traffic prediction result;
the processor further configured to: perform SLA prediction for each of the plurality of flow groups and for each overlay link of a set of overlay links using an SLA prediction model, to obtain the SLA prediction result of each of the plurality of flow groups;
wherein the one or more global intents includes a first global intent that is indicative of the requirement related to safety, and the first global intent is associated with a highest priority in the one or more global intents, wherein the first global intent indicates the network entity to make the routing decisions that meet the at least one SLA requirement;
wherein the one or more global intents includes a second global intent that is indicative of the requirement related to stability, and the second global intent is associated with a second highest priority in the one or more global intents, wherein the second global intent indicates the network entity to make the one or more routing decisions that minimize changes on one or more previous routing decisions;
wherein the policy information comprises a first set of global intents dedicated for a first group of applications running on the network entity, and a second set of global intents dedicated for a second group of applications running on the network entity;
wherein the processor configured to make the one or more load balancing decisions for the plurality of flow groups comprises the processor further configured to: make a load balancing decision for each of the plurality of flow groups based on the policy information, and a traffic prediction result or the SLA prediction result of that flow group.
The limitations above are neither taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ismailsheriff et al. (US 10,873,533 B1) discloses fabric policy plane translating user intent into network policy, SLA designation, and IP SLA performance measurements.
Liu et al. (US 11,838,188 B1) discloses generating QoS configuration data associated with application flows and forwarding groups based on SLA scores.
Szigeti et al. (US 2022/0321467 A1) discloses grouping traffic flows, SLA in IoT environments, and intent-based QoS policies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461