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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nedeltchev et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0322258) in view of Gandhi et a. (US Pub. No. 2023/0029987).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Nedeltchev discloses a method a device, a non-transitory computer medium storing a set of instructions (paragraph 20) comprising:
one or more memories (figure 2 memory 240; paragraph 14); and
one or more processors (figure 2 processor 220) to:
receive a traceroute request for a path between two edge devices of a network (figure 5 trace request 410; paragraph 30: R1 receives traceroute request from ES-A (figure 3)) ;
generate a response indicating a identifier and metrics (paragraph 29 and figure 4) associated with the device (figure 5 trace response 415; paragraph 33: R1 adds identifier for head-end node/R1);
provide the traceroute request to a plurality of network devices associated with a
plurality of paths between the two edge devices (figure 5 in-tunnel trace request 410a and out-tunnel trace request 410b; paragraphs 30 and 31: R1 provides traceroute request to plurality of nodes);
receive a plurality of responses indicating respective identifiers and metrics (figure 4 and paragraph 29) associated with the plurality of network devices (figure 5 trace responses 415a and 415b; paragraphs 32 and 33: R1 receives trace responses from R2, R3, and R4) ;
generate a traceroute response that includes the response and the plurality of
responses (figure 5 trace response 415; paragraphs 32-35: R1 generates/relays/forward responses via 415 to ES-A); and
provide the traceroute response to one of the two edge devices to indicate metrics (figure 4 and paragraph 29), to the one of the two edge devices, associated with the plurality of paths (figure 5 trace response 415; paragraphs 32-35: R1 generates/relays/forward responses via 415 to ES-A).
Nedeltchev does not teach response indicates bit costs and energy efficiency identifiers and energy efficiency associated with each path.
However, in the same field of route/path discovery, Gandhi discloses response indicates bit costs and energy efficiency identifiers and energy efficiency associated with each path (see figure 1 OAM probe packet 150 and figure 2; paragraphs 20, 21, 23: nodes along the path respond to OAM probe packet 150 with its own data regarding energy efficiency data 162; bit cost could be power consumption of each node or more, energy efficiency identifier could be product type’s ID (router, switch) or its ID/serial number, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev response indicates bit costs and energy efficiency identifiers and energy efficiency associated with each path.
The motivation would have been to calculate energy efficiency of each path and select an optimal path (abstract, paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, all limitations of claims 1 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev further teaches plurality of paths between R1 and R4 (figure 5). In-tunnel does not discloses plurality of responses from plurality of nodes. Gandhi, on the other hand, discloses plurality of paths and plurality of responses from plurality of nodes in second path (see figures 1 and 2) and metrics/energy efficiency data of all nodes are provided for path selection (figure 3 and paragraphs 47-48). Basically, Nedeltchev does not teach a plurality of responses from plurality of nodes; however, Gandhi discloses a plurality of responses from plurality of nodes (see figures 1-2). Nedeltchev does not teach but Gandhi discloses providing the traceroute request to a second plurality of network devices associated with a second path between the two edge devices; receiving a second plurality of responses indicating respective bit costs and energy efficiency identifiers associated with the second plurality of network devices; generating a second traceroute response that includes the response and the second plurality of responses; and providing the second traceroute response to the one of the two edge devices to indicate, to the one of the two edge devices, an energy efficiency associated with the second path (see figure 1 OAM probe packet 150 and figure 2; paragraphs 20, 21, 23, 47, and 48: both paths comprises plurality of responses from multiples nodes along the routes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev providing the traceroute request to a second plurality of network devices associated with a second path between the two edge devices; receiving a second plurality of responses indicating respective bit costs and energy efficiency identifiers associated with the second plurality of network devices; generating a second traceroute response that includes the response and the second plurality of responses; and providing the second traceroute response to the one of the two edge devices to indicate, to the one of the two edge devices, an energy efficiency associated with the second path.
The motivation would have been to determine an energy efficient path.
Regarding claims 3, all limitations of claims 2 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev does not teach but Gandhi discloses the first traceroute response and the second traceroute response enable the one of the two edge devices to determine whether to utilize the first path or the second path (paragraphs 26-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev the first traceroute response and the second traceroute response enable the one of the two edge devices to determine whether to utilize the first path or the second path.
The motivation would have been for the most optimal energy efficiency path.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 12, and 18, all limitations of claims 2, 8, and 15 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev does not teach but Gandhi discloses teaches the second plurality of responses include type-length-value fields indicating the respective bit costs and the energy efficiency identifiers associated with the second plurality of network devices (figure 1 and paragraph 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev the second plurality of responses include type-length-value fields indicating the respective bit costs and the energy efficiency identifiers associated with the second plurality of network devices.
The motivation would have been for information collection.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, all limitations of claims 2, 8, and 15 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev further teaches the device and the second plurality of network devices are intermediate network devices between the two edge devices (see figures 1, 3, and 5).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, all limitations of claims 2, 8, and 15 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev does not teach but Gandhi discloses receiving traffic destined for one of the two edge devices; selecting one of the first path or the second path for the traffic based on the energy efficiencies associated with the first path and the second path; and causing the traffic to be provided to the one of the two edge devices via the one of the first path or the second path (see figure 3; paragraphs 47 and 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev receiving traffic destined for one of the two edge devices; selecting one of the first path or the second path for the traffic based on the energy efficiencies associated with the first path and the second path; and causing the traffic to be provided to the one of the two edge devices via the one of the first path or the second path.
The motivation would have been for best path selection.
Regarding claims 10, all limitations of claims 8 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev further teaches the traceroute request includes one of an Internet control message protocol traceroute request (paragraph 28).
Regarding claims 16, all limitations of claims 15 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev does not teach but Gandhi discloses the first traceroute response and the second traceroute response enable the one of the two edge devices to determine whether to utilize the first path or the second path (see figure 3 and paragraphs 47 and 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev the first traceroute response and the second traceroute response enable the one of the two edge devices to determine whether to utilize the first path or the second path.
The motivation would have been for best path determination.
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nedeltchev et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0322258) in view of Gandhi et a. (US Pub. No. 2023/0029987) in view of Rayes et al. (US Pat. No. 12,021,689).
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 17, all limitations of claims 2, 8, and 15 are disclosed above. Nedeltchev does not teach but Rayes discloses each of the respective energy efficiency identifiers associated with the first plurality of network devices and the second plurality of network devices includes an energy certificate rating (figure 6 item 632; col. 19 line 65 to col. 20 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Nedeltchev each of the respective energy efficiency identifiers associated with the first plurality of network devices and the second plurality of network devices includes an energy certificate rating.
The motivation would have been to poor energy rating device identification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cain et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0202468) teaches route discovery with weighted QoS for optimal path.
Ashlock et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0007810) discloses intelligent network path probing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights