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 office correspondence is in response to the application filed on December 21, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 and are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant fails to provide which limitation is not disclosed by the prior arts of record. The interview on 12/22/2025, Examiner further suggested additional limitation to overcome the prior arts, and no agreement was reached during the interview on the submitted amendment.
The instant application is directed towards use of SLAs to route application traffic in SD-WAN. Ramanathan discloses automatically identifying which application should have application-based multipath routing (AMR) applied when delivering application traffic across an SD-WAN and applying AMR to the identified application upon the occurrence of one or more conditions. Information associated with one or more service level agreements (SLAs) for applications in a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN) and an application-based multipath routing (AMR) module including processing circuitry. service orchestrator 102 manages SD-WAN services. Service orchestrator 102 may control, fulfill, configure, monitor usage, assure, analyze, secure, modify, reconfigure, and apply policies to SD-WAN services and establish application-based forwarding over transport networks 110 based on security policies, Quality of Service (QoS) policies, QoE policies, and/or business or intent-based policies. Service orchestrator 102 may contain or represent a Network Service Orchestrator (NSO). Service orchestrator 102 has awareness of resources of SD-WAN system 100 to include policy and SLA management (PSLAM) to enable SD-WAN functions; routing management for managing routing operations including creating virtual private networks, enabling routing on SD-WAN edges 108, and interfacing to route reflectors and routers; telemetry services that provide interfaces used by fault monitoring and performing monitoring systems for collecting service check results from telemetry agents; and network activation functions to enable device provisioning. At least some of the above functions may be performed by components of a separate or integrated SD-WAN controller 104. The AMR module is configured to identify, based on criteria, one or more of the applications for AMR, wherein each criterion of the criteria is associated with a corresponding property of an application. The AMR module is configured to determine a breach of one of the SLAs on each WAN link associated with a first application of the identified one or more applications. The AMR module is configured to apply, in response to determining the breach, AMR for the first application. SLA metrics may include jitter, latency, packet loss, bandwidth or other SLA metrics and may be customized for each application. When an SLA is not met across the available WAN links for an identified application in AMR priorities, AMR module 320 may detect such a condition and apply AMR for that application. SD-WAN edges 108 process network traffic according to routing information, policy information, performance data, and service characteristics of WAN links 142 that may derive at least in part from performance, bandwidth constraints, and behaviors of the underlay connections. SD-WAN edges 108 use dynamic path selection to steer network traffic to different WAN links 142 to attempt to meet QoS/QoE requirements defined in SLAs and configured in SD-WAN edges 108 for SD-WAN service 101, or to route around failed WAN links. SD-WAN edges 108 process and forward received network traffic for SD-WAN service 101 according to policies and configuration data from service orchestrator 102, routing information, and current network conditions including underly connection performance characteristics. SD-WAN edges use application-specific QoE and advanced policy-based routing (APBR) to identify an application flow and specify a path for the application flow by associating SLA profiles to a routing instance on which the application flow is to be sent. The routing instance may be a virtual routing and forwarding instance (VRF), which is configured with interfaces for the WAN links.
Ahmed discloses determining a routing path for application traffic based on application telemetry and current network telemetry. The current metrics for a set of potential paths between an edge device and an application endpoint associated with an application, generating, from the current metrics, a link score for individual paths in the set of potential paths, receiving application status data generated from historic telemetry data associated with the application and the set of potential paths, generating, from the application status data, an application score for individual paths in the set of potential paths, and determining, as a function of the link score and the application score for individual paths in the set of potential paths, a selected path to be used in communications between the edge device and the application endpoint. the edge device may act as a router configured to perform policy-based network traffic routing without acting as a proxy. The edge device is configured to convey application data over a number of potential paths within a separate network, such as a software-defined wide area network (SD-WAN). The computing device (an edge device) is configured to route communications between one or more user devices connected to it via a first network and one or more applications hosted by a service provider platform accessible over the SD-WAN fabric. The edge device may perform a path selection process to determine an appropriate path within the second network over which communications between the user device and the application are to be routed. With the use of current metrics for selecting optimal network paths for routing application data between a user device and an application hosted on a service provider. Using API to retrieve custom application status data from a service provider. In response to such an API call, the application (or a service provider hosting that application) may retrieve telemetry data related to each of the set of potential paths. The telemetry data may include information about path performance metrics collected over time. furthermore, upon identifying a number of paths (e.g., tunnels), the edge device may collect metrics associated with each of the identified paths. The edge device may send probes (e.g., HTTP HEAD requests or TCP pings) to the various applications via each of the identified paths. The edge device then measures, and records, metrics associated with each path as determined in response to each of the respective probes. The resulting KPI metrics for each path reflect a current status of the network. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the prior arts, the rejection is sustained for this claim.
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 8, and 15 recite similar features to claim 1. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 each depend from one of the respective independent claims, and rendered obvious by the combination of the prior arts Ramanathan and Ahmed for at least the same reasons by virtue of their dependencies. Examiner respectfully sustains the rejections.
Furthermore, as it is Applicant's right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention, it is also the Examiner's right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner's position that the detailed functionality that allows Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. By the rejection above, the applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant's claimed invention.
Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which distinguishes over the prior art or to significantly narrow definition/scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. It is requested that Applicant clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanathan et al. (US Publication 2024/0333634) hereafter Ramanathan, in view of Ahmed et al. (US Publication 2024/0064085) hereafter Ahmed.
As per claim 1, Ramanathan discloses a method performed at least in part by an edge device, the method comprising: sending, from the edge device, probes over an SD-WAN over multiple paths (paragraphs 0022-24, 0034: SD-WAN edge devices with multiple path); determining, based at least in part on the probes, network telemetry data representing network performance associated with the multiple paths (paragraphs 0034, 0045-46, 0073: performance metrics associated with different routes); sending, from the edge device, network telemetry data to a control plane (paragraphs 0023, 0073: telemetry data indicating WAN conditions); receiving a policy that indicates a first threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a first application at a first time, and for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN, wherein the policy is based on the telemetry data (paragraphs 0045-49, 0052-53, 0097: customized policies and application based on SLA performance metric: throughput, latency, jitter, packet loss, among other metrics for traffic); and routing traffic from the first application through a first path of the multiple paths of the SD-WAN based at least in part on the first path satisfying the first threshold SLA (paragraphs 0023, 0034, 0081-83: multipath routing information). Although, Ramanathan discloses application-based multipath routing for SD-WAN service, but he fails to expressly discloses a policy that indicates a first threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) that is suitable for a first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ahmed elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of a policy that indicates a first threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths (paragraphs 0031-36, 0040, 0042, 0150: application specific traffic mapped to SLA with appropriate tunnel with policies and other metrics for traffic).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahmeds’ teaching with Ramanathan. One would be motivated identify and select optimal path with customized policies to provide traffic routing and to be in consistent SLA and QoS for applications accordingly.
As per claim 2, Ramanathan discloses the method further comprising: receiving the policy that indicates a second threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a second application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN; and routing traffic from the second application through a second path of the multiple paths based at least in part on the second path satisfying the second threshold SLA (paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0113).
As per claim 3, Ramanathan discloses the method wherein the network telemetry data is first network telemetry data at a first instance, the method further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the probes, second network telemetry data at a second instance representing network performance associated with the multiple paths (paragraphs 0023, 0113-114); sending, from the edge device, the second network telemetry data to the control plane; receiving an updated policy that indicates a second threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN (paragraphs 0023-24, 0034, 0073); and routing traffic from the first application through a second path of the multiple paths based at least in part on the second path satisfying the second threshold SLA (paragraphs 0040-42, 0059, 0113).
As per claim 4, Ramanathan discloses the method wherein the network telemetry data includes at least one of: bandwidth data; traffic loss data; jitter data; or latency data (paragraphs 0063, 0097, 0104).
As per claim 5, Ramanathan discloses the method wherein the first threshold SLA for the first application for sending traffic is based at least in part on at least one of: the network telemetry data; quality of experience data; or a configuration by a user (paragraphs 0023-24, 0034, 0073).
As per claim 6, Ramanathan discloses the method further comprising: receiving a policy that indicates a second threshold SLA for a particular device associated with the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN; and routing traffic from first application through a first path of the multiple paths based at least in part on the first path satisfying the second threshold SLA (paragraphs 0040-42, 0059, 0113).
As per claim 7, Ramanathan discloses the method further comprising: receiving a policy that indicates a second threshold SLA for a particular location associated with the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN; and routing traffic from the first application through a first path of the multiple paths based at least in part on the first path satisfying the second threshold SLA (paragraphs 0033, 0042, 0059-60).
Claim 8 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claims 9-14 are listed all the same elements of claims 2-7 respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 2-7 apply equally as well to claims 9-14, respectively.
As per claim 15, Ramanathan discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, from an edge device, network telemetry data representing network performance associated with multiple paths of an SD-WAN (paragraphs 0034, 0045-46, 0073: SD-WAN edge devices with multiple path); receiving quality of experience data indicating a quality of application experience (paragraphs 0023-24, 0038-40, 0073: different application/WAN with QoE); determining, based at least in part on the network telemetry data and the quality of experience data, a first threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a first application at a first time, and for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN, wherein the first threshold SLA is based on the network telemetry data and quality of experience data (paragraphs 0045-49, 0052-53, 0097: customized policies and application based on SLA performance metric: throughput, latency, jitter, packet loss, among other metrics for traffic); generating, based at least in part on the first threshold SLA, a policy that indicates the first threshold SLA for the first application; and sending the policy to the edge device (paragraphs 0023, 0034, 0081-83: multipath routing information). Although, Ramanathan discloses application-based multipath routing for SD-WAN service, but he fails to expressly discloses the first threshold SLA for a first application at a first time, and for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN, wherein the first threshold SLA is based on the network telemetry data and quality of experience data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mermoud elaborately discloses the claimed limitation of a policy that indicates a first threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a first application at a first time, and for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN, wherein the first threshold SLA is based on the network telemetry data and quality of experience data. (paragraphs 0031-36, 0040, 0042, 0150: application specific traffic mapped to SLA with appropriate tunnel).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 1.
As per claim 16, Ramanathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media the operations further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the network telemetry data and the quality of experience data, a second threshold SLA for a second application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN; generating, based at least in part on the second threshold SLA, a policy that indicates the second threshold SLA that is suitable for the second application; and sending the policy to the edge device (paragraphs 0040, 0045-48, 0113).
As per claim 17, Ramanathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the network telemetry data is first network telemetry data at a first instance, the quality of experience data is first quality of experience data at the first instance, the operations further comprising: receiving, from the edge device, second network telemetry data at a second instance representing network performance associated with multiple paths of an SD-WAN (paragraphs 0023-24, 0034, 0073); receiving second quality of experience data at the second instance indicating a quality of application experience; determining, based at least in part on the second network telemetry data and second quality of experience data, a second threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN (paragraphs 0023, 0034, 0081-83: multipath routing information); generating, based at least in part on the second threshold SLA, an updated policy that indicates the second threshold SLA for the first application instead of the first threshold SLA; and sending the updated policy to the edge device (paragraphs 0040, 0042, 0048, 0113).
As per claim 18, Ramanathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media wherein the network telemetry data includes at least one of: bandwidth data; traffic loss data; jitter data; or latency data (paragraphs 0063, 0097, 0104).
As per claim 19, Ramanathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media the operations further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the network telemetry data and the quality of experience data, a second threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a particular device associated with the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN; generating, based at least in part on the second threshold SLA, a policy that indicates the second threshold SLA that is suitable for the particular device associated with the first application; and sending the policy to the edge device (paragraphs 0040-42, 0059-60, 0113).
As per claim 20, Ramanathan discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media the operations further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the network telemetry data and the quality of experience data, a second threshold Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a particular location associated with the first application for sending traffic via the multiple paths over the SD-WAN (paragraphs 0033, 0042, 0059-60); generating, based at least in part on the second threshold SLA, a policy that indicates the second threshold SLA for the particular location associated with the first application; and sending the policy to the edge device (paragraphs 0040-42, 0059-60, 0113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Emmanuel L Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights